Procedural timelines for filing written statements in Family Courts are directory to advance substantive justice.

The parties married in 2010 and have twin daughters.

They have lived separately since 2018, with the children in the appellant/mother’s custody.

In 2024, the respondent/husband filed a guardianship petition (GP No. 33/2024).

Summons were served on the appellant on 22.04.2024.

Due to financial constraints as an unemployed mother, the appellant engaged counsel only on 18.10.2024 and filed her written statement on 24.10.2024.

The Family Court dismissed her application for condonation of delay, noting a 65-day delay beyond the 120-day limit based on the precedent *Smt. K.S. Sumi Mol vs. Suresh Kumar E.K.*, and struck off her defence.

The appellant challenged this dismissal.

Whether the time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is mandatory or directory in the context of proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Whether the Family Court erred in strictly applying procedural timelines in a guardianship matter involving the welfare of minor children.

The court primarily applied Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which allows the court to layout its own procedure to arrive at the truth.

Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 gives the Act overriding effect.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in *Kailash v. Nanhku* (2005) 4 SCC 480, establishing that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory/procedural rather than mandatory, serving as a "handmaid of justice" rather than its mistress.

It further cited *Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra* (2022), affirming that delays in non-commercial suits can be condoned.

It emphasized the "paramount importance of child welfare" as a governing principle in guardianship disputes.

The High Court reasoned that while timelines in *K.S. Sumi Mol* are intended to ensure expeditious disposal, they should not be applied "rigidly or mechanically" to cause a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the appellant’s delay was not deliberate but resulted from "compelling circumstances," specifically severe financial distress and the responsibility of raising two daughters without maintenance.

The Court distinguished the present case from *K.S. Sumi Mol* by noting the lack of "laxity or gross negligence" on the appellant's part.

Most crucially, the court held that in guardianship cases, procedural technicalities must yield to the "welfare of minor children," and closing the right to a defence would result in "grave prejudice" to the children's future.

It held that the written statement be taken on record to ensure the matter is decided on merits rather than procedural defaults.

This was subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 payable to the respondent, to be adjusted against arrears of maintenance due to the appellant.

The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on 10.03.2026.