Back
Husband's Delay in Paying Litigation Costs Backfires: Delhi HC Restores Wife's Defence in Divorce Battle
In a ruling emphasizing fairness in family courts, the dismissed an appeal by Sh. Nikhil Bhatia against his wife, Ms. Sonam Singh Bhatia, in a contentious divorce case. A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta upheld the 's decision to revive the wife's right to file her written statement, ruling that the husband could not exploit his own failure to pay ordered litigation expenses. This decision, delivered on , in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 63/2026 , reinforces that parties cannot gain procedural advantages through their defaults.
From Wedded Bliss to Courtroom Clashes
The couple married on , under Hindu rites, and have a young son now in the wife's custody. Matrimonial discord led the wife to leave the home in late 2023. The husband filed for divorce under (cruelty) in (HMA No. 64/2024).
On , the court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 11,000 in litigation costs within a week, granting the wife four weeks to file her written statement. He paid late—only after . Meanwhile, the wife missed the deadline, and on September 20, her defence was struck off due to non-filing. Proceedings advanced: evidence recorded via Local Commissioner, husband cross-examined by wife's counsel. But on , the wife applied to set aside the striking order, alongside a maintenance claim under . The obliged on , blaming the husband's delay.
Husband's Push for Speed, Wife's Plea for Fair Play
The husband's counsel argued the wife's application was belated—filed over a year late without condoning delay—defeating timelines for written statements. Citing Smt. K.S. Sumi Mol v. Suresh Kumar E.K. (Delhi HC, 2023), he stressed speedy family case disposal and claimed the wife waived rights by cross-examining without protest.
The wife, appearing in person with aid, highlighted the husband's non-payment as the root cause, preventing her full participation. The court noted procedural hiccups like judge retirements and transfers delayed hearings post-striking.
Equity Trumps Timelines: The Doctrine of ''
The High Court rejected the husband's stance, invoking 's principle: parties cannot take advantage of their "." Though typically for final decrees, its equity applies throughout proceedings. The bench clarified Smt. K.S. Sumi Mol was inapplicable, as it didn't address a petitioner's own non-compliance.
Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, it cited
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India
(2005) that written statement timelines are
, allowing condonation beyond limits. In
Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd.
(2021), delay condonation holds even sans formal application if facts warrant. Here, the husband's default
"put the respondent at a disadvantage,"
making striking off inequitable.
As echoed in recent coverage—like headlines proclaiming
"Husband Can't Seek To Strike Off Wife's Defence After Failing To Pay Litigation Expenses"
—this underscores procedural justice in family law.
Key Observations from the Bench
" embodies the principle that a party cannot be permitted to take advantage of its . Though the provision applies at the stage of final adjudication, the underlying principle is one of equity and should apply to the conduct of parties throughout the proceedings."(Para 12)
"Appellant cannot be permitted, by his conduct, to put the respondent at a disadvantage and thereafter claim benefit of the same."(Para 13)
"The impugned order of the dated was passed in equity, recording that appellant-petitioner is himself to be blamed for not filing of the Written Statement due to non-payment of litigation expenses."(Para 16)
"There is no absolute bar on the Court in exercising its discretion to condone delay even in the absence of a formal application, where the facts so warrant."(Para 14, citing SC)
Appeal Dismissed: A Call for Expedited Justice
The High Court found "no infirmity" in the 's order, dismissing the appeal. It clarified observations don't prejudice merits and urged swift disposal below. Practically, this safeguards respondents (often wives) from procedural traps set by petitioners' lapses, promoting equity in divorce suits. Future cases may see stricter scrutiny of compliance before striking defences, balancing speed with fairness.
Pending applications stand disposed.
