In non-commercial cases involving family rights, courts may show leniency and grant indulgence to parties facing difficulties, considering the importance of the matter.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 21.12.2022 and 21.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned orders') passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Family Court') in HMA No.1027/2019, titled Babita v. Manish Shokeen (hereinafter referred to as the `Divorce Petition').

2. By the Impugned order dated 21.12.2022, the learned Family Court was pleased to close the right of the petitioner herein to file her written statement and also struck off the defence of the petitioner. By the Impugned order dated 21.03.2023, the learned Family Court dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 21.12.2022.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a resident of a village in Jhajjar District, Haryana. She had earlier filed proceedings against the respondent herein in the Courts at Jhajjar. She was served with the summons in the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent and had appeared before the Court on 30.05.2022. She engaged a counsel practicing at the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to defend her in the Divorce Petition. She further states that she had filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the Divorce Petition from the learned Family Court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to the learned Principal Family Court at Jhajjar, Haryana, being TR.P.(C) 2395/2022, titled Babita v. Manish Shokeen. In the meantime, and in spite of the imposition of costs of Rs.1,000/-, vide order dated 02.09.2022, her written statement could not be filed and the proceedings of the Divorce Petition were adjourned on 02.09.2022 and 09.11.2022, while granting her further time to file the written statement. On 20.12.2022, she tried to contact the counsel whom she had engaged for representing her before the learned Family Court, however, he was not reachable on his phone. The petitioner, therefore, travelled to Delhi and appeared in person before the learned Family Court and sought further time to file her written statement. The said prayer was rejected by the learned Family Court vide the Impugned order dated 21.12.2022. The petitioner states that she thereafter contacted the lawyer who was representing her in the proceedings before the Courts at Jhajjar, who advised her to prepare her written statement along with the application seeking recall of the order dated 21.12.2022, and file the same on 21.03.2023. The learned Family Court, however, has been pleased to dismiss the said application seeking recall of the order and refused to take her written statement on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.05.2023, has been pleased to transfer the Divorce Petition to the learned Principal Family Court, Jhajjar, Haryana. He submits that the petitioner would suffer grave prejudice in case the present petition is not allowed. He submits that the petitioner is an uneducated lady staying in a village in Jhajjar District, Haryana with her 7 years old minor daughter. She is not being paid any maintenance by the respondent and finds it difficult to defend the case at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He submits that in such matters, the Court should take a lenient view. He submits that the written statement was duly prepared and was to be filed on 21.03.2023.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner deserves no indulgence of this Court. He submits that the Impugned orders deserve no interference from this Court inasmuch as the petitioner has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the respondent, based whereon, an FIR bearing No.218/2022 dated 22.11.2018 has been registered against the respondent. He submits that the petitioner had filed the transfer petition before the Supreme Court in September, 2022, however, chose not to file