The written-statement deadline in matrimonial proceedings is directory, not mandatory.

The petitioner-husband challenged the order dated 16 June 2026 by which the Additional Judge, District and Additional Sessions Court, Tarana, District Ujjain, closed his right to file a written statement in RCS HM No. 52/2025.

The petitioner contended that, as the parties had initiated proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and there was a possibility of mediation, he believed that filing the written statement could be deferred; he stated that the written statement was ready and sought one further opportunity.

The respondent opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had been granted seven opportunities, including two opportunities subject to token costs of ₹600, but still failed to file the written statement.

By then, issues had been framed, the respondent’s evidence had been recorded, and the matter had reached the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner’s right to file a written statement, already closed after repeated opportunities, should be restored in the matrimonial proceedings.

Whether, in the interests of substantial justice, the procedural time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC could be treated as directory and a final opportunity granted, subject to costs and safeguards against further delay.

The Court considered Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides the statutory grounds and framework for matrimonial proceedings, and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, under which a defendant is ordinarily required to file a written statement within thirty days of service and, for recorded reasons, within the extended period prescribed by the provision.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s principle that, except in commercial litigation, the time requirement for filing a written statement is generally directory rather than mandatory, the Court held that procedural rules may be relaxed in appropriate cases to advance substantial justice.

The Court also considered the authorities cited by the parties, including Smt. Ratna v. Sudarshan, Kamal Gupta v. Amrendra Kumar Gupta, Smt. Shama Bano v. Afzal Khan, Simrit Gulani v. Anil Gulani, and Jayant v. Charuletha.

Although the petitioner had failed to file the written statement despite seven opportunities and imposition of token costs, the Court noted that the dispute was between spouses and that the record reflected a prior possibility of settlement through mediation.

Ordinarily, the repeated default and the advanced stage of the trial would justify rejection of the request, particularly because reopening the pleadings could prejudice the respondent and delay the proceedings.

However, applying the directory nature of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in non-commercial proceedings and considering the larger matrimonial dispute, the Court preferred adjudication on merits over shutting out the petitioner’s defence altogether.

It balanced the respondent’s prejudice and the petitioner’s default by imposing substantial costs, prescribing strict timelines, and directing that no unnecessary adjournments be sought.

The petitioner was directed to pay ₹40,000 to the respondent within seven days and file his written statement within the same seven-day period.

The trial court was permitted to recast the issues, if necessary, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one month thereafter, and to proceed in accordance with law while granting proper opportunity to both parties.

The parties were directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments, with liberty to the trial court to pass appropriate orders in case of non-cooperation.