NB v. SB, 2026

The husband instituted divorce proceedings against the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty.

On April 18, 2024, the Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹11,000 towards litigation expenses to the wife within one week.

Simultaneously, the Family Court granted four weeks’ time to the wife to file her written statement.

The husband failed to comply with the Family Court’s direction within the stipulated period and did not pay the litigation expenses in time.

Due to non-payment of litigation expenses, the wife was unable to file her written statement within the prescribed timeline.

Thereafter, the husband moved an application seeking striking off the wife’s defence for failure to file the written statement.

Acting upon the husband’s plea, the Family Court on September 20, 2024 struck off the wife’s right to file the written statement.

Subsequently, the wife filed an application seeking restoration of her right to file the written statement.

The Family Court allowed the wife’s application, observing that the husband himself was responsible for the delay because of his non-compliance with the order regarding litigation expenses.

Aggrieved by this order, the husband approached the Delhi High Court contending that the wife’s restoration application was belated and contrary to the statutory timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal.

The Court upheld the Family Court’s order restoring the wife’s right to file the written statement.

The bench observed that the husband himself had failed to comply with the Family Court’s direction to pay litigation expenses within time.

The Court held that the husband could not benefit from a situation that arose due to his own conduct.

Reliance was placed upon Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which incorporates the equitable principle that no party should be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.

The Court clarified that although Section 23 technically applies at the stage of final adjudication, the underlying equitable principle governs the conduct of parties throughout matrimonial proceedings.

The bench observed that timely payment of litigation expenses was essential to enable the wife to properly defend herself in the proceedings.

The Court held that the husband’s conduct had placed the wife at a procedural disadvantage and therefore he could not seek striking off her defence on that basis.

Reliance was also placed upon Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court held that courts possess discretion to condone delay even in the absence of a formal application when circumstances justify such exercise.

The High Court concluded that the Family Court had rightly exercised its judicial discretion in restoring the wife’s right to file the written statement.

The judgment reinforces the equitable principle that no litigant should benefit from his or her own wrongdoing.

The Court adopted a justice-oriented and pragmatic interpretation of procedural law rather than a rigid technical approach.

By invoking Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court extended equitable principles beyond final adjudication to procedural conduct during litigation.

The ruling highlights the importance of litigation expenses in ensuring effective access to justice, especially in matrimonial disputes where financial imbalance between parties may exist.

The judgment protects procedural fairness by preventing economically stronger litigants from creating disadvantages for the opposing party and later exploiting them.

The Court appropriately balanced procedural discipline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC with the broader objective of substantive justice.

Reliance on Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd. reflects judicial recognition that procedural timelines should not override fairness and equity in deserving cases.

The decision strengthens the discretionary powers of Family Courts to ensure fair adjudication in matrimonial disputes.

The ruling may serve as an important precedent discouraging abuse of procedural mechanisms in family litigation.