Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 788 (CAL)

Prabal Kumar Ghosh v. Sanchita Ghosh

2016-10-03

HARISH TANDON

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. This revisional application is directed against the order no. 15 dated September 09, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barasat, District – 24 Parganas (North) in Matrimonial Suit No. 177 of 2014, by which an application for extension of time to file written statement is rejected and the suit was fixed at the ex parte board. 2. It is observed by the Trial Court that the petitioner filed the written statement on 28th June, 2016 and the date was fixed for acceptance thereof. 3. According to the wife/opposite party, the summon was served on 3rd August, 2015 but the petitioner did not appear to contest the said suit by filing the written statement within the statutory period provided therefor. However, in the written objection the wife took a different stand, as according to her, the summons was served on 9th January, 2015 at Chandannagore address and was again served on 19th January, 2015 at Purbachal address. 4. The Trial Court proceeded in declining to accept the written statement, as both the parties are medical practitioner and are educated. 5. The Trial Court was more swayed by certain statements made by the husband, which appears to the learned Judge to be false. The learned Judge was very much annoyed when he noticed the statement that the suit is not filed by the respondent/husband after seeing that the same was filed by him. 6. It is not in dispute that even after the amendment having brought to the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said provision is not mandatory but directory in nature. In deserving cases the Court can extend the time for filing the written statement. 7. The parties are litigating on a matrimonial cause and, therefore, this Court feels that the denial to contest the suit may affect the status as well as the adverse remarks would be imprinted on the losing party to continue through out his or her life. It cannot be said that there is no explanation offered for acceptance of the written statement filed beyond the statutory period. 8. It is, however, noticed that the parties have a minor girl from the said wedlock and an application for maintenance is still pending. 9. It cannot be said that there is no explanation offered for acceptance of the written statement filed beyond the statutory period. 8. It is, however, noticed that the parties have a minor girl from the said wedlock and an application for maintenance is still pending. 9. This Court, therefore, feels that it would be in the interest of justice if the time to file written statement is extended and the acceptance is secured. However, this Court cannot overlook the delay in disposal of the matrimonial suit because of untimely filing of the written statement and this Court feels that it can be compensated on monetary terms. 10. The impugned order is thus set aside. 11. The Trial Court is directed to accept the written statement on record to have been filed within the extended time subject, however, to payment of costs assessed at Rs.25,000/- to be paid within one week after the reopening of the Trial Court following Puja vacation to the advocate on record of the wife/opposite party. 12. The advocate on record shall grant a proper receipt therefor and shall thereafter forward the said sum to the wife/opposite party. After obtaining the proper receipt the learned advocate shall file the same before the Trial Court. 13. However, this Court is informed that the application for maintenance is also pending. 14. This Court requests the Trial Court to dispose of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act within three weeks from the date of the communication of this order in accordance with law. 15. Since the written statement has been filed, there is no impediment on the part of the Trial Court in proceeding with the suit. 16. The Trial Court is also requested to make efforts to dispose of the Matrimonial Suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of the communication of this order. 17. This revisional application is thus disposed of.