IMPORTANT POINT
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on court proceedings, the extension of limitation period, and the importance of ensuring sufficient notice and not acting in haste in closing the right of a party to file the written statement, especially when parties have been referred for counselling/settlement.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 31.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court') in HMA No. 919/2019, titled Shweta v. Vikrant Vashisht, whereby the learned Family Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking recall of the orders dated 01.04.2021 and 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby the right of the petitioner to file the written statement and the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent herein had been closed, respectively.

Petitioner's Submissions

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the above petition seeking divorce, being HMA No. 919/2019, has been filed by the respondent on 26.09.2019. It was taken up for the first time for hearing by the learned Family Court on 21.01.2020, and the parties were referred to the Court Counsellor where they were directed to appear on 22.01.2020. While the petitioner appeared before the Court Counsellor, the respondent did not appear on the said date and the matter was fixed for 18.03.2020 by the Court Counsellor. Unfortunately, before the said date, COVID-19 pandemic hit the country, because of which there was first a complete lockdown and thereafter partial working of the courts.

3. As the petitioner was appearing in person, he was not aware of the partial working of the court and remained under the impression that the Court Counsellor will fix a further date for the appearance of the parties by giving notice of the same to the petitioner. Due to this misconception, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Family Court on 10.09.2020, 05.11.2020 and 01.04.2021. The learned Family Court, in the absence of the petitioner, closed the right of the petitioner to file the written statement vide order dated 01.04.2021.

4. As the petitioner remained unaware of the listing of the Divorce Petition before the learned Family Court, he did not appear before the learned Family Court on 10.08.2021 and 18.12.2021 as well, and remained unaware of the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the learned Family Court.

5. It is only on 02.03.2022, when the petitioner learnt that the courts have recommenced physical hearing of the petitions, on enquiry, he was informed that the date fixed by the learned Family Court in the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent is 07.03.2022.

6. The petitioner claims that on 07.03.2022, he was late in reaching the court and on an enquiry, was informed that the case has been adjourned to 28.04.2022. However, the petitioner was not informed that his right to cross-examine the respondent, who had appeared as PW-1, had been closed on the said date. On inspection, the petitioner became aware of the above orders and thereafter, filed an application on 20.04.2022, seeking recall of the orders dated 01.04.2021 and 07.03.2022. The said application has, however, been dismissed by the learned Family Court by its Impugned Order dated 31.08.2022.

7. The petitioner claims that the reason for not filing the written statement and for not appearing when the matter was called, was due to a misconception that due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the courts were not functioning and the Divorce Petition was not being listed and that first the counselling proceedings would be completed by the Court Counsellor before calling upon the petitioner to file the written statement.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise, the period of filing written statement stood extended due to the orders passed by the Supreme Court IN RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020), and the right of the petitioner to file his written statement to the Divorce Petition could not have been closed by the learned Family Court. In support of his plea, the learned counsel for the petit