Courts may permit written statements beyond 120 days in exceptional cases, subject to costs.

The respondent-wife filed a divorce petition alleging cruelty.

The appellant-husband’s right to file a written statement was closed on 18 March 2026 after he failed to file it within the prescribed period. He sought recall under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, although no ex parte decree had been passed; the Family Court advised him to seek condonation of delay under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

On 30 July 2026, the Family Court declined to take his written statement on record, noting defects in the pleading and supporting documents, and awarded the respondent interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant challenged that order.

1. Whether the appellant should be permitted to file a written statement beyond the prescribed period, notwithstanding the closure of his right to file it and defects in the documents filed

2. Whether the Family Court’s interim-maintenance order should be reconsidered after the appellant files a proper reply with supporting affidavit

Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the time limit for filing a written statement is directory, and a court may extend it in exceptional circumstances, for reasons recorded and on appropriate terms; extension is not routine and may be refused for laxity or gross negligence (Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480).

Curable procedural defects should not ordinarily defeat substantive rights unless a recognised exception applies, including deliberate non-compliance or failure to cure a defect after an opportunity (Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75).

The Court also noted the Division Bench guidelines in K.S. Sumi Mol v. Suresh Kumar E.K., MAT.APP.(F.C.) 127/2023, which permit filing beyond 30 days for recorded reasons but set a 120-day limit from service.

The written statement must comply with the applicable pleading requirements, including verification under Order VI Rule 15 CPC.

The Court accepted that the written statement, related applications, and reply to the Section 24 application contained defects, and noted that the appellant had used the wrong provision in seeking recall.

Nevertheless, no ex parte decree had been passed; the Family Court had left open the possibility of seeking condonation, and the dispute concerned dissolution of marriage and custody of minor children.

Applying the principles that procedural rules should not defeat substantive justice, the Court considered it appropriate to allow one further opportunity, subject to payment of costs and correction of the defects.

The Family Court was requested to reconsider the Section 24 application in accordance with law; meanwhile, the appellant must continue paying interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month and clear any arrears within four weeks.

The written statement is not to be taken on record unless the amounts directed are paid before its filing.