Litigant Cannot Seek Striking Off Defence if Delay Resulted from Their Own Non-Payment of Litigation Expenses

The Appellant (husband) filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) in 2024

On 18.04.2024, the Family Court directed the Appellant to pay Rs. 11,000 as litigation expenses within one week and granted the Respondent (wife) four weeks to file her Written Statement

The Appellant failed to pay the expenses within the stipulated time. Consequently, the Respondent did not file her Written Statement.

On 20.09.2024, the Family Court struck off the Respondent’s defence; litigation expenses were only paid after this order.

On 14.10.2025, the Respondent moved to set aside the striking off of her defence, which the Family Court allowed on 05.02.2026, citing the Appellant's own default in paying litigation expenses.

The Appellant challenged this revival of the Respondent's right to file a Written Statement.

1. Whether the Family Court was justified in setting aside an order striking off the Respondent's defence when the Appellant had failed to comply with the court's direction to pay litigation expenses

2. Whether the statutory timelines for filing a Written Statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC are mandatory or directory in matrimonial proceedings where equitable principles under the HMA apply

Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandates that a party cannot take advantage of their own wrong or disability.

Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India (2005), which established that the upper limit for filing a Written Statement under the CPC is directory and can be condoned in appropriate cases.

Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd. (2021) to affirm that courts have the discretion to condone delay even without a formal application if facts warrant such an exercise.

The High Court reasoned that the principles of equity under Section 23 of the HMA govern the conduct of parties throughout the proceedings.

The Court found that the Appellant was squarely at fault for failing to pay the litigation expenses by the 25.04.2024 deadline, which was a prerequisite for the Respondent to effectively conduct her case.

The Court held that the Appellant could not seek to enforce strict statutory timelines for the Written Statement while simultaneously being in default of court orders.

The Court distinguished the Appellant's reliance on Smt. K.S. Sumi Mol v. Suresh Kumar E.K., noting that speedy disposal guidelines do not protect a party that has itself failed to comply with judicial directions.

Since the litigation expenses were paid late, the Family Court’s exercise of discretion to revive the defence was a proper application of equitable justice.

The Court clarified that the procedural timelines for filing a Written Statement are directory and the Family Court properly exercised its discretion in the interest of justice.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court's order dated 05.02.2026; all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.