Family Courts Must Prioritize Justice Over Technicalities" – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Closing Wife’s Right to Defend Divorce Case

Denial of Right to File Written Statement in Matrimonial Disputes Can Cause Irreparable Harm –  In a significant ruling Delhi High Court presided over by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, set aside orders of the Family Court that had closed a wife’s right to file a written statement in a divorce case, emphasizing that technical procedural rules should not override the fundamental principles of justice in family disputes.

"Family courts must prioritize substantive justice over rigid procedural constraints. Closing a spouse’s right to defend in a matrimonial case can have grave personal consequences and should be done only in the rarest circumstances," the Court held.

The ruling came in the case of Meenu Agrawal v. Bharat Goel, where the petitioner (wife) challenged the Family Court’s decision to bar her from filing a written statement due to procedural delays.

The case arose out of a divorce petition filed by the respondent (husband) under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty. The petitioner, a single mother facing financial hardship, failed to file her written statement within the stipulated time, leading the Family Court to close her right to respond.

When she sought to have this closure order recalled, citing her daughter’s ongoing medical treatment and financial constraints, the Family Court refused to reconsider.

Challenging these orders in the High Court, the petitioner argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor willful but due to compelling personal circumstances.

"The petitioner is a single mother, solely responsible for the upbringing and care of two children, including a minor son. Her daughter's medical condition required constant attention, which made it difficult to comply with procedural deadlines," her counsel submitted.

The respondent countered that the petitioner was engaging in dilatory tactics to delay the divorce proceedings, arguing: "The divorce petition has been pending since August 2023, but due to the petitioner’s repeated delays, no progress has been made. WhatsApp messages between the daughter and the respondent show that she was traveling for leisure, contradicting claims of a severe medical condition."

Family Courts Must Show Flexibility in Matrimonial Matters

In ruling in favor of the petitioner, the High Court underscored the need for a differentiated approach in family law cases compared to commercial or civil litigation.

"Courts must be mindful that closing a party’s right to defend in a family matter has life-altering consequences. Unlike commercial litigation, where procedural delays may have financial implications, in matrimonial disputes, such procedural rigidity can result in severe personal injustice," the judgment stated.

The Court referenced its earlier ruling in Komal Gupta v. Amrendra Kumar Gupta (2023), where it had observed: "Family courts should not apply stringent commercial litigation standards in matrimonial disputes. The object of family law is to ensure fair adjudication, not procedural punishment."

Additionally, the Court relied on its decision in Dr. Sunil Kumar v. Dr. Archana (2024), where it had allowed a delayed written statement to be taken on record to prevent undue hardship to the defending spouse.

Justice Dudeja further emphasized: "Litigation in matrimonial cases is already emotionally draining. The law should not be interpreted in a manner that deprives a spouse of the fundamental right to present their case."

Medical Evidence and WhatsApp Conversations: Key Factors in the Court’s Decision

A crucial factor in the Court’s ruling was the medical records of the petitioner’s daughter, which were submitted as evidence.

"The medical records on file prima facie demonstrate that the petitioner’s daughter has been undergoing treatment for serious health issues. Furthermore, WhatsApp conversations between the respondent and his daughter confirm that the respondent was well aware of this," the judgment noted.

The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that photographs of the daughter traveling disproved her illness, stating: "Medical conditions do not preclude occasional social activities. The respondent’s attempt to use isolated images to refute continuous medical treatment is neither fair nor reasonable."

Final Decision: Orders Set Aside, Wife Allowed to File Written Statement

Concluding that the denial of the petitioner’s right to file a written statement would cause severe prejudice, the Court set aside the Family Court’s orders dated 29.10.2024 and 15.01.2025, allowing the petitioner to submit her written statement within one week.

"Justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicalities. The petitioner must be given a fair chance to defend herself," the Court held.

To prevent further delays, the Court imposed a strict condition that no further adjournments would be granted, directing the Family Court to expedite the divorce proceedings.

"While procedural leniency is warranted in family disputes, it should not be misused. The Family Court must ensure that proceedings are conducted expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments," the Court instructed.

The judgment also included a direction to both parties to cooperate in the interest of justice, stating: "Litigation should not be reduced to a battle of attrition. Both parties must work towards a fair and timely resolution of their dispute."

This landmark decision reinforces the Delhi High Court’s commitment to ensuring substantive justice in matrimonial cases, while also laying down clear guidelines for Family Courts to adopt a flexible approach in such matters.

By prioritizing fairness over procedural rigidity, the Court has ensured that a litigant is not denied the right to be heard due to personal hardships.

This ruling will serve as an important precedent for future matrimonial disputes, reaffirming that:

• Family law requires a sensitive, case-specific approach.

• Procedural delays must be evaluated in the context of personal hardships.

• Denying a spouse the right to file a written statement must be an exception, not the rule.

Expeditious justice must be balanced with fairness, ensuring that parties are given reasonable opportunities to defend themselves.

Date of Decision: February 21, 2025