A party cannot seek a procedural advantage (like striking off a defence) based on a delay that was caused by their own failure to comply with court directions, such as the payment of litigation expenses, based on the equitable principle that one cannot take advantage of their own wrong.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal assails the Order dated 05.02.2026 (“impugned order”) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (“Family Court”) in HMA No. 64/2024, whereby, the application filed for respondent was allowed and the Order of the Family Court dated 20.09.2024 was set aside vide which the defence of the respondent had been struck off.

2. As per the case of the appellant, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 08.02.2019 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, one male child was born who is presently residing in the care and custody of the respondent. Due to matrimonial discord and differences between the parties, the respondent left the matrimonial home along with the minor child in the latter part of 2023. The appellant filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”) before the Family Court being HMA No. 64/2024.

3. On 18.04.2024, the respondent entered appearance before the Family Court. By an order passed on the same date, the appellant was directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/- within a week to the respondent, and the respondent was granted a period of four weeks to file her Written Statement. The next date of hearing was 05.08.2024. The litigation expenses were not paid within the aforesaid time. The respondent failed to file her Written Statement within the time provided. On 05.08.2024, although the then Presiding Officer had retired, and the successor had not taken charge, the respondent was duly represented through a Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) counsel. In view of the respondent’s continued failure to file her Written Statement, the appellant moved an application seeking to strike off the defence of the respondent. The matter was thereafter listed on 20.09.2024, when the Family Court struck off the respondent’s right to file Written Statement. It is pertinent to mention here that the litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/- were paid to the respondent after 20.09.2024 only, as is also recorded in the impugned order.

4. Subsequent to the order dated 20.09.2024 striking off the defence of the respondent, the matter was listed on 21.01.2025, on which date the then Presiding Officer stood transferred. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 15.04.2025; however, on the said date as well, no Presiding Officer was holding the Court. A successor Presiding Officer took charge, and the next effective date of hearing was 23.07.2025 on which Local Commissioner (“LC”) was appointed for the recording of the evidence on the request and the willingness of the appellant to bear the entire cost of the LC. Thereafter, before the LC, the appellant was also cross-examined through the respondent’s DLSA counsel and the appellant completed his evidence after due process.

5. On 14.10.2025, the respondent filed an application seeking setting aside of the Order dated 20.09.2024 and revival of her right to file Written Statement. Along with the said application, respondent also filed an application under Section 24 of the HMA, seeking maintenance.

6. The Family Court vide the impugned Order dated 05.02.2026 set aside the Order dated 20.09.2024 and revived the respondent’s righ