The Delhi High Court said it has come across various matrimonial appeals where Family Courts permitted the cross-examination to "go on endlessly for days", which was not in the interest of justice. The Court asked Family Courts to ensure that parties are not allowed to ask "irrelevant questions" during cross-examinations.

The above observations were made in an Order partly setting aside a Family Court's Order that had closed the right of a woman to cross-examine due to her inability to appear on the date set for the same. Restoring her chance to cross examine, the Court remarked that in such matters "a little more sensitivity was required to be shown".

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said, "[T]his Court is coming across a number of matrimonial appeals from which it appears that the Family Courts are permitting the cross-examination of both the husband and/ or the wife, as the case may be, to go on endlessly for days altogether, which in our view is not in the interest of justice."

Noting from the Preamble of the Family Courts Act, 1984 that its purpose is to secure speedy settlement of disputes, the Court said, "[W]e are of the view that the learned Family Courts should ensure that the learned counsel for the parties are not permitted to ask irrelevant questions during the course of conducting cross-examination going on for days at a time."

The Court added, "The nature of disputes before the Family Courts are generally pertaining to either seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, desertion, etc., or seeking custody of the minor children and it is therefore necessary that disputes raised in these petitions are decided expeditiously as envisaged under the Act."

Advocates Prashant Mendiratta appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Sunil Mittal appeared for the Respondent.

The Court was hearing an appeal against a Family Court's Order rejecting a request by the Appellant-woman for deciding an application for maintenance before proceeding with the pending petition. In the process, it ordered the closing of her right to examine herself.

The Appellant had produced herself on two days immediately preceding the date set for cross examination, but the Court reasoned that it was one of the oldest pending cases before it.

The Respondent-man submitted that the Appellant had been trying to unduly delay the trial and hence, the Family Court's Order could not be said to be unfair or arbitrary. He also countered her contention that her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance should be decided first.

The Court did not interfere with the Family Court's decision that the application for maintenance would be taken up with the main petition, but set aside the part of the Order denying her the right to cross examine.

"[W]e are constrained to observe that the right of the appellant to examine herself has been closed arbitrarily.The learned Family Court, in its anxiety to complete the trial in an old matter, has overlooked the fact that in family matters like the present, where the appellant had already been cross-examined at length, a little more sensitivity was required to be shown." the Court said.

Considering that the Appellant had previously made appearance, the Court said, "In our considered view, in the present factual matrix when it was not a case where the appellant was not appearing for cross-examination, the learned Family Court ought not to have closed the right of the appellant to examine herself in such a hasty manner."

The Court remarked that the Family Court had overlooked the fact the fact that the Appellant was working in a private organisation and, therefore, could not be expected to get leave as and when she applied.

Partly allowing the appeal by setting aside the Family Court's Order to the extent that it closed the right of the appellant to examine herself, the Court directed that final arguments in the petition shall not be heard till the cross-examination of the Appellant is complete, for which the Family Court would be free to fix a date with the consent of the parties.

"At the same time, the appellant is cautioned to ensure that she appears before the learned Family Court for her cross-examination on the date(s) as may be fixed by the learned Family Court subject to suitability of both sides." the Court said.

Cause Title: Pooja Sharma v. Arun Sharma [2024:DHC:9968:DB]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Prashant Mendiratta, Arjun Sharma and Rahul Bhaskar

Respondent: Senior Advocate Sunil Mittal, Advocates Seema Seth, Muskaan Deswal and Satish Panchal

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Rekha PalliJustice Saurabh Banerjee

Tushar Kohli