The Delhi High Court recently quashed an order of a family court that rejected a woman's plea to cross-examine her husband in a matrimonial dispute.

Justice Rekha Palli, who presided over the case, emphasized that family courts should not adopt an overly technical approach and hastily close the right of the parties to cross-examine. While matrimonial matters are expected to be decided expeditiously, it is essential to ensure that the parties' right to cross-examine is not unjustly curtailed.

In this particular case, the woman's plea to cross-examine her husband was rejected by the family court. Her counsel had requested additional time for cross-examination as they had not been provided with a copy of her husband's evidence by way of an affidavit.

Furthermore, her counsel had another case scheduled before the High Court on the same day and had sought an adjournment, which was denied without adequate justification. Consequently, the woman's application to cross-examine her husband was rejected by the family court. She subsequently filed an application to restore her right to cross-examine, which was also rejected.

The respondent-husband supported the challenged order, arguing that the petitioner had presented contradictory arguments before the family court. He also pointed out the defiant attitude of the petitioner's counsel, claiming that these factors justified the court's decision to reject the application.

However, the High Court disagreed and took into consideration the potential grave and irreparable prejudice that would be caused to the petitioner by denying her the right to cross-examine her husband, who was the most crucial witness in the case. The Court held that even if the petitioner's counsel's reasons for not receiving the evidence or being occupied with another case were disregarded, the family court should have taken into account the significance of allowing the petitioner to cross-examine her husband.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the plea, setting aside the rejected order. The petitioner was directed to cross-examine the respondent on the next date of hearing in the Family Court. However, the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner as compensation for the inconvenience caused to the respondent.

Advocates Prateek Goswami, Neeraj Gupta, and Rajat Asija represented the petitioner, while advocate Shailender Dahiya appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Case Title: