IMPORTANT POINT
Balancing the petitioner's right to cross-examine with the delay caused and compensating the respondent.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed challenging the Orders dated 10.04.2023, 12.07.2023 and 16.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order(s)') passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, North-District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court') in HMA No. 463/2021, titled as Umesh Aggarwal v. Neha Garg.

2. By the Impugned Order dated 10.04.2023, the learned Family Court was pleased to close the right of the petitioner herein, who is the respondent in the Divorce Petition, to cross-examine the three witnesses produced by the respondent herein, for the failure of the petitioner to appear before the Court despite repeated calls.

3. By the Impugned Order dated 12.07.2023, the learned Family Court recorded the statements of another three witnesses produced by the respondent herein, and on failure of the main counsel for the petitioner to appear before the Court, closed her right to cross-examine the said witnesses.

4. The respondent did not appear before the learned Family Court on 16.09.2023 as well, and the learned Family Court, by the Impugned Order dated 16.09.2023, closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine another two witnesses produced by the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by the Order dated 28.09.2022, the learned Family Court had listed the Divorce Petition on 24.01.2023 for recording the examination-in-chief of the witnesses produced by the respondent herein. On 24.01.2023, the examination-in-chief of the three witnesses produced by the respondent was duly recorded and at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, the Divorce Petition was adjourned to 10.04.2023 for recording the cross-examination of these witnesses. He submits that on 10.04.2023, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear and the right to cross-examine the three witnesses was closed by the learned Family Court. He submits that in this manner only one opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the three witnesses produced by the respondent.

6. He further submits that on 12.07.2023, due to intensive rains in Delhi, a general direction had been issued by the Delhi High Court requesting the courts to adjourn the matters listed before them in case of the non-appearance of the counsels. He submits that, in spite of the same, the learned Family Court recorded the examination-in-chief of three further witnesses produced by the respondent, and due to the non-appearance of the main counsel for the petitioner, closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine these witnesses.

7. He submits that on 14.09.2023, he had filed an application seeking adjournment of the Divorce Petition which was listed on 16.09.2023 as the father of the counsel was unwell. The learned Family Court, however, refused to grant an adjournment and recorded the examination-in-chief of two further witnesses produced by the respondent herein and closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, therefore, there were justified grounds for the petitioner not to appear on 12.07.2023 and 16.09.2023, and the learned Family Court has erred in closing the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. He further submits that a valuable right of the petitioner has been taken away by the Impugned Orders, which would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner to defend the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in spite of long passage of time, the petitioner took no steps to seek recall of the Orders dated 10.04.2023 and 12.07.2023. He submits that from the same, it is apparent that the respondent is merely trying to delay the adjudication of the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent herein. He submits that the respondent is well versed in law and has done her professional degree i