The High Court of Delhi in a significant development focused on to smoothen the matrimonial litigation and issued guidelines to solve family disputes in a speedy manner. The High Court responded to an appeal filed by Smt. Sumi Mol against the judgment of Family Court. The decision was passed by the division bench comprising of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna. The Court aimed to streamline legal provisions and to curb unnecessary delays that leads to delay in the adjudication of the case.
Time limit for filing reply
Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) provides for a procedural provision regarding filing of a reply/ Written Statement. The provision says that a reply must be filed by the Defendant within a period of thirty days. If he fails to do so, then the time period to submit the reply can be extended up to 90 days from service of summons. The respective court must record the reason for the extension in writing. If there is a reasonable cause of delay in filing the written statement then the Court may grant time not exceeding 120 days and must record the reasons in writing.
However, a literal interpretation of the said provision cannot be drawn to ensure justice and thus a delay in filing the written statement can be subjected to the compensation with costs.
Brief Facts of the case
The case is pertaining to matrimonial dispute between ‘A’ the Petitioner and ‘B’ the respondent. ‘A’ filed a divorce petition on 12th September, 2017, before the Family Court to seek the dissolution of marriage. ‘A’ contended that there marriage had irretrievably broken down due to a number of issues, that also include the reason of incompatibility and differences of opinion.
‘B’ failed to file his say/ written statement in response to the divorce petition for a long period and after 5 years and 6 months the written statement was filed by B. The Family Court has condoned the delay in filing of the written statement vide order dated 07.02.2023. Hence, ‘A’ moved to the High Court challenging the order of the Family Court.
It was alleged by A that B had deliberately delayed the proceedings by not filing a timely written statement and by not actively participating in the examination process.
Observations by the High Court
A division bench of the High Court of Delhi passed a landmark judgment, wherein the High Court has emphasised on the urgency of timely resolution in matrimonial cases. The Court noted the prevalence of prolonged litigation in matrimonial disputes, it outlined the need to reduce judicial delays and to enhance the efficacy of the judicial system in India.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait stated, “The internal value of the justice system lies in contributing to an efficient social and economic framework. We find that the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides for a time frame and similar rules have been framed so far under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but no such rule has been framed till today in relation to family litigation…” The Court put emphasis on the need for swift resolution in such cases. The High Court called out the principles laid down in the case of Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, by the Apex Court of India that suggested that priority should be given to expeditiously resolving matrimonial cases.
It was pointed out by the High Court that “The matrimonial litigation must not be allowed to linger inordinately over a long period of time as it is not only painful and acrimonious for the parties but also such long drawn litigation is many a times, motivated by the intention of either party to drag the litigation. Reducing judicial delay and improving litigation processes by case management techniques are important elements of increasing access to justice.”
In essence, the court highlighted the need for setting time frames and rules to expedite the resolution of family disputes, in contrast to other types of cases.
The guidelines issued by the High Court of Delhi provided a roadmap for family court procedures, focusing on the prescribed timelines for various stages of litigation. Some of the key provisions are highlighted below:
- Issuance of Summons: It was mandated by the Court that a summons must be issued to the defendant upon the initiation of a suit. It requires them to respond within a period of thirty days and to file their say/ written statement. The court also outlined certain conditions under which the summons need not be issued. If a defendant fails to file the written statement within the prescribed timeline, the say can be filed within a specific time period that shall not extend beyond 120 days.
- Documents Inspection and Disclosure: Parties to the proceedings need to complete the inspection of all disclosed documents within a period of 30 days of filing of the say. If even after notice, a party denies to inspect or fails to produce documents then the court will address the said issue within 30 days of receiving the relevant application.
- Admission and Denial of Documents: A statement pertaining to admissions or denials for all disclosed documents must be done within 15 days of inspection completion.
- Interim Applications: An application regarding interim maintenance, custody, etc. and other such proceedings related to marriage and family affairs must be resolved within 90 days from the date of filing.
- Judgment and Decree: The court is required to pass an order or deliver the judgment within 30 days of the conclusion of arguments.
Decision of the Court
The High Court acknowledged A’s concern pertaining to the prolonged delay in B’s submission of a written statement to the divorce petition filed by A. It was noted by the Court that such delays can obstruct the speedy resolution of matrimonial disputes and lead to emotional strain to the parties.
The High Court upheld A’s plea for a divorce decree based on B’s failure to adhere to the prescribed timeline for filing a reply/ written statement. That the delay in filing reply had contributed to the prolongation of the litigation, causing emotional and psychological stress on both parties to the litigation.
It was noted by the High Court that the impugned Order dated 07.02.2023 of the Family Court does not merit any interference as it is in the interest of justice that the aforesaid petition be decided on merits. That as per the conduct of B and his dilatory tactics, the Family Court was directed to make an endeavour to decide the petition within three months.
