Husband Can't Seek To Strike Off Wife's Defence In Matrimonial Proceedings After Failing To Pay Litigation Expenses: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a husband cannot seek to strike off his wife's defence in matrimonial proceedings for delay in filing a written statement after himself failing to comply with the Family Court's direction to pay litigation expenses.

A division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order which had restored his wife's right to file a written statement in a divorce case.

The husband had instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). On April 18, 2024, the Family Court directed him to pay ₹11,000 towards litigation expenses to the wife within a week and granted the wife four weeks to file her written statement.

However, the husband failed to pay the litigation expenses within the stipulated time, and the wife could not file her written statement within the prescribed period.

Subsequently, the husband moved an application seeking striking off the wife's defence, following which the Family Court, on September 20, 2024, struck off her right to file the written statement.

Later, the wife moved an application seeking restoration of her right to file the written statement. The Family Court allowed the plea, observing that the husband himself was responsible for the delay since he had failed to pay litigation expenses in time.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that the wife's application for restoration was highly belated and that the statutory timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC had been defeated.

Rejecting the appeal, the High Court referred to Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which embodies the principle that a party cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong.

“Though the provision applies at the stage of final adjudication, the underlying principle is one of equity and should apply to the conduct of parties throughout the proceedings,” the Court said.

The bench noted that the husband had not complied with the Family Court's direction to pay litigation expenses within time and therefore could not now seek to benefit from the wife's inability to file the written statement.

“It was incumbent upon the appellant to pay the litigation expenses directed by the Family Court in time to enable the respondent to conduct her case properly. Appellant cannot be permitted, by his conduct, to put the respondent at a disadvantage and thereafter claim benefit of the same,” the Court said.

Reliance was also placed on Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd., (2021) where the Supreme Court held that there is no absolute bar on the Court in exercising its discretion to condone delay even in the absence of a formal application, where the facts so warrant.

As such, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal.

Appearance: Mr. Aman Chawla, Adv. for Appellant; Respondent in person.

Case title: NB v. SB

Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 63/2026

Click here to read order