Procedural Rules are Directory in Matrimonial Disputes to Advance Substantial Justice Over Technical Negligence

The respondent-husband instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The appellant-wife failed to appear and was proceeded ex-parte on April 30, 2024

This order was subsequently set aside on November 27, 2024, on the condition that the appellant file her written statement within one week

The appellant filed the written statement and an application for condonation of delay on February 7, 2025, citing medical illness (high-grade fever and conjunctivitis), technical difficulties with electronic evidence, and travel for other legal proceedings

The Family Court dismissed the application and refused to take the written statement on record on February 12, 2026

1. Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the written statement by adopting a rigid procedural approach

2. Whether the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC regarding timelines for filing a written statement are mandatory or directory in the context of Family Court proceedings

Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC prescribes a 90-day limit, but the Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480 held the provision to be directory rather than mandatory, serving as a "handmaid of justice"

Sections 10 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 empower Family Courts to evolve their own procedures to settle disputes and secure substantial justice, overriding rigid technicalities of the CPC where necessary

Procedural law should be interpreted to advance the cause of justice rather than defeat it

The High Court observed that while timelines in matrimonial disputes should generally be respected to ensure expeditious adjudication, deviation is permissible in exceptional circumstances to avoid a miscarriage of justice

The Court analyzed the appellant's medical records, specifically a prescription advising bed rest for three weeks due to high fever and diagnosis of bilateral acute atopic conjunctivitis, finding these to be bona fide reasons for the delay

It reasoned that the Family Court failed to adopt a "harmonious and balanced approach" as mandated by the Supreme Court’s precedents in Kailash and Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India

The Court concluded that denying the appellant the right to file her defence due to a hyper-technical view of procedure would cause serious prejudice and defeat the interests of substantial justice

The Court held that the written statement be taken on record subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent

The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Family Court to decide the divorce petition expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments