VEENA BIRBAL, J:

1. The counsel for appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 by contending that the learned trial court at Tis Hazari dealing with the aforesaid case has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is contended that the respondent/husband ought to have filed the divorce petition at Dwarka Courts. After some arguments learned counsel submits that she is not pressing the aforesaid contention before this court and prays that liberty be given to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. In view of above submissions made, the aforesaid contention is dismissed as having not been pressed. However, petitioner/wife will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings at appropriate forum in accordance with law.

2. The next ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that the right of the petitioner/wife to cross-examine the respondent/husband has been closed by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant/wife has submitted that the divorce petition was filed in the year 2011. The issues were framed on 02.01.2012 and the first date of evidence of respondent/husband before the ld. trial court was 02.02.20