Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Naveen Kumar Dalal – Petitioner
Versus
Neelam Kadyan – Respondent
CM (M) No. 689 of 2023, CAV No. 221 of 2023, CM App. Nos. 21457-21460 of 2023
Decided On : 28-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mukesh M. Goel.
For the Respondents: Ashutosh Dubey, Rajshri Dubey, Abhishek Chauhan, Amit P. Shahi, Amit Kumar.

The court emphasizes the need for time limits in proceedings and holds that cross-examination in matrimonial matters cannot continue endlessly.

Headnote:
Cross-Examination - Matrimonial Dispute - HMA No. 464/2018, Ajit Mohan v. Legislative Assembly National Capital Territory of Delhi
Fact of the Case:

The husband challenges the closure of his right to cross-examine the wife in a matrimonial dispute that has been ongoing for almost a decade. The court expresses exasperation at the prolonged proceedings and dismisses the husband's application seeking recall of the order closing his right to cross-examine.
Finding of the Court:

The court finds that the husband has been granted sufficient opportunities to cross-examine his wife, and expresses concern over the prolonged nature of the proceedings. The court dismisses the husband's application and closes his right to cross-examine, directing the husband to conclude his evidence by a specified date.
Issues: Prolonged matrimonial dispute, closure of right to cross-examine, exasperation of the court
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need to set time limits for proceedings and expresses concern over prolonged interim proceedings. It holds that cross-examination in matrimonial matters cannot continue ad nauseam and grants the husband a final opportunity to conclude his evidence, subject to payment of costs to the wife.
Final Decision: The husband is directed to conclude his evidence by a specified date, with no further opportunity to either party. The matter is to proceed for final arguments after the conclusion of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CAV 221/2023

2. The caveat is discharged, as the caveator has appeared.

CM APPLs. 21458-60/2023

3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed.

CM (M) 689/2023 & CM APPL. 21457/2023

4. The Petitioner and the Respondent are husband and wife who have been embroiled in an acrimonious matrimonial litigation.

5. In the present petition, the Petitioner - Naveen Kumar Dalal (hereinafter, “husband”) has challenged the impugned order dated 29th March, 2023 passed by the ld. Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter, “Family Court”) by which the right of the husband to cross examine the Respondent - Smt. Neelam Kadyan (hereinafter, “wife”) has been closed. The husband's evidence has also been closed and the matter has been fixed for final arguments for tomorrow i.e. on 29th April, 2023.

6. The petition seeking divorce was filed by the Wife in 2013 and is yet to reach a conclusion despite almost a decade having been passed. It appears that, repeatedly at every stage petitions are being filed by the husband challenging various orders passed by the ld. Family Court. One such order was order dated 20th February, 2020 passed in HMA No. 464/2018 titled Neelam Kadyan v. Naveen Dalal, which was considered by this Court in CM (M) No. 623/2020 titled Naveen Kumar Dalal v. Neelam Kadyan. In the said case vide order dated 15th December, 2020. In the said petition also the grievance was that the right to cross examination was closed. This Court allowed the husband to cross examine the wife in the following terms:

“7. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record, I find that the learned Family Court has hurriedly proceeded to close the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent. The matter was listed for cross-examination of the respondent for the second time on 20.02.2020, and the petitioner had admittedly cross examined her on the earlier date of 18.12.2019. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to deny that it was the very first occasion on which an adjournment was being sought for cross-examination of the respondent.

8. In my view, the learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, ought to have taken into consideration that in these trying times, when the entire world is reeling under the effect of COVID-19, no serious prejudice would have, even otherwise, been caused to the respondent if the matter had been adjourned for one date. On the other hand, the passing of the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 and the subsequent refusal of the learned Family Court to recall the order dated 20.02.2020 has caused further delay in the matter, which aspect also seems to have escaped the notice of the learned Family Court while passing dated 14.10.2020. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 20.02.2020 and 14.10.2020 are wholly unsustainable and are accordingly, set aside.

9. As the matter is stated to be listed before the learned Family Court on 22.11.2021, the petitioner will ensure that in case the respondent is present, her cross-examination is conducted on the said date and on any other subsequent date, as may be directed by the learned Family Court.

10. The Family Court will, however, not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the petitioner and keeping in view the orders already passed by this Court, endeavour to expeditiously dispose of the matter.”

7. The cross examination of the wife by the husband, before the ld. Family Court, has since then continued over several dates being 30th April, 2022, 18th July, 2022, 19th July, 2022 & 7th September, 2022. On 16th March, 2023, none had appeared for the husband and the right of the husband to cross examine the wife was closed by the ld. Family Court. In the said order the ld. Family Court had also expressed concern that the said case was one of the oldest cases pending before the ld. Family C