2023:PHHC:065846

CR-2839-2023 (O&M)

-1-

117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-2839-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: May 08, 2023

Hemant Thakur

….Revisionist

versus

Sugandha

….Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:-

Ms. Lipika Mamli, Advocate for revisionist.

*****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein inter alia is for setting aside impugned order dated

22.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Gurugram, whereby application filed by revisionist/husband to allow him to file

written statement was dismissed. Further sought to allow the revisionist to file written

statement and lead evidence.

2.

The revision petition is premised on the averments that respondent/ wife

filed petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against petitioner.

Marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 10.01.2017. Revisionist

filed an application under Section 151 CPC for allowing him to file written statement.

Vide impugned order dated 22.03.2023, application was dismissed.

3.

Learned counsel for revisionist/husband submits that husband could not

file written statement as talks of compromise were going on between the parties.

4.

Considering the nature, facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of

notice to respondent/wife seems unnecessary and is, therefore, dispensed with.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the case file.

6.

Impugned order is premised on the following reasons:-

“5.

From the perusal of record, it is revealed that memo of

appearance on behalf of respondent was filed on 12.10.2021 and

thereafter the case was adjourned for 15.02.2022 and 02.05.2022. On

02.05.2022, written statement was not filed and the case was adjourned

MAHAVIR SINGH

2023.05.19 18:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

judgement/order

2023:PHHC:065846

CR-2839-2023 (O&M)

-2-

for 29.07.2022 for filing written statement subject to cost of Rs.500/-. On

dated 29.07.2022 neither cost was paid nor written statement was filed.

Rather an application to adjourned the petition sine-die was filed on

behalf of the respondent. Vide order dated 29.7.2022, defence of the

respondent was ordered to be struck off.

xx

xx

xx

xx

Above orders dated 29.07.2022 are self explanatory, and

therefore, these do not need to be set aside or modified. There are no

grounds to allow the application, therefore, the same stands dismissed.”

7.

Provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC though ought to be

adhered to but learned Court below could have still permitted petitioner to file written

statement, subject to certain penalty as a deterrent. Otherwise also, provisions

contained in Order VIII Rule 1 ibid have been held to be directory in nature by the

Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association Vs. UOI, 2005(6) SCC 344. The Court

should not, therefore, be too harsh to disallow filing of written statement.

8.

Trite law it is that procedure is a handmaid of justice and, ought not be

given precedence at the cost of subjugation of substantive justice. Prejudice would

indeed be caused to revisionist/husband unless afforded an opportunity to file written

statement.

9.

Consequently, revisionist/husband is granted one opportunity to file

written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to

respondent/wife. Revision stands disposed of and impugned order is modified

accordingly.

10.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA)

JUDGE

May 08, 2023

mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No

MAHAVIR SINGH

2023.05.19 18:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

judgement/order