IMPORTANT POINT
The court highlighted the need for a delicate balance between expeditious disposal and fair opportunity in matrimonial disputes, considering the reasons for delay and the impact of external factors.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent herein, being HMA No.467/2018, titled as Manish Grover v. Vasvi Grover (hereinafter referred to as 'Divorce Petition'), challenging the Orders dated 05.01.2023 and 27.03.2023 [hereinafter after referred to as the 'Impugned Order(s)'] passed in the above-mentioned Divorce Petition by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Family Court').

2. By the Impugned Order dated 05.01.2023, the learned Family Court has been pleased to close the right of the petitioner herein, to conduct further cross-examination of the respondent herein. By the subsequent Impugned Order dated 27.03.2023, the learned Family Court has, upon recording the Examination-in-Chief of the PW-2 Sh.Praveen Kumar Grover, PW-3 Sh.Manish Kapoor, and PW-4 Sh.Rohit Juneja, has discharged them and listed the Divorce Petition for recording the evidence of the petitioner herein on 31.05.2023.

SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has erred in attributing the entire blame for non-completion of the cross-examination of the respondent herein, on the petitioner. Drawing reference of this Court on various orders passed by the learned Family Court between 2018 and 2023, leading upto passing of the Impugned Orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recording of the cross-examination of the respondent was delayed for various reasons, and while the petitioner can be said to be guilty of the same on a few dates, the reasons for such delay were beyond the control of the petitioner. He submits that therefore, the learned Family Court has erred in closing the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent, putting the entire blame of the delay only on the shoulders of the petitioner herein.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Family Court has also acted in haste in closing the right of the petitioner to cross-examine PW2, PW3 and PW4, who were produced as witnesses by the respondent for the first time on 27.03.2023. He submits that the petitioner was unable to appear before the learned Family Court on the said date as, when she had earlier appeared in person on 05.01.2023, she had failed to note down the said next date of proceedings fixed by the learned Family Court. He submits that in any case, the learned Family Court could not have acted in haste and denied an important right to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses.

5. He further submits that after the hearing on 05.01.2023, the respondent had extended a settlement proposal to the petitioner, which was being considered by the petitioner.

6. He submits that between January, 2023 and March, 2023, the Final Examination of the daughters of the parties was also going on, because of which the petitioner could not keep track of the litigation between the parties and engage a new lawyer to represent her in the Divorce Petition. He submits that it is only on 03.05.2023, when a petition filed by the respondent herein, being CM(M) 737/2023, titled as Manish Grover v. Vasvi Grover, was listed before this Court, and the learned counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses had been closed by the learned Family Court, that the petitioner became aware of the passing of the above mentioned Impugned Orders. He submits that unfortunately, the father of the petitioner suffered a massive heart attack on 08.05.2023, because of which he was admitted in Cardiac Care Unit (in short, 'CCU') from 08.05.2023 to 10.05.2023 and continued to remain under treatment. Due to the medical condition of her father, the petitioner could not properly pursue the Divorce Petition and her remedies against the Impugned Orders. He submits that, the