Cross-examination is a vital aspect of a fair trial, necessitating a balance between the rights of both parties, especially when new evidence is presented.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging order dated 21.04.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi ("Trial Court") vide which his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for being granted opportunity to cross-examine the respondent, who is petitioner before the learned Trial Court has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner states that a decree for mutual consent divorce was obtained by him and respondent on 11.12.2001 in case HMA No. 910/2001 from the concerned Court at Delhi. It is stated that the divorce had been obtained after all matrimonial disputes pending between the parties had been amicably settled. It is now stated that the respondent due to her greed had filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2003. It is stated that the petitioner has been cross-examined on four occasions by the respondent herein in the year 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2022. It is also stated that vide order dated 26.11.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, the evidence of the petitioner had been closed. However, upon an application being filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the wife i.e. respondent herein, her application for cross-examination was allowed vide following order dated 01.02.2020:

"Keeping in view the submissions made and in order to give an FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES, application is allowed. One last opportunity is given to both the parties to appear and conclude evidence. Now to come up for cross examination of RW1 on 04.02.2020."

3. It is, however, stated that as per order dated 01.02.2020, an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the respondent for her re-examination and cross-examination filed by the petitioner had been dismissed. It is stated that the present order is in clear contravention of order dated 01.02.2020 as both the parties were given opportunity to cross-examine each other, however, the wife was given more than four opportunities to cross-examine the petitioner/husband. The petitioner states that after submission of fresh income affidavit on 11.04.2017 by his wife/respondent, the petitioner herein has not been allowed to cross-examine her. It is stated that he was granted opportunity to cross-examine the respondent only on 20.04.2011, prior to filing of an affidavit in 2017. It is stated that it is essential to cross-examine the respondent/wife since there are numerous transactions and entries in her bank account statements which reveal that she has spent, withdrawn and deposited huge amount of money in her back account which reflects that she is capable to maintain herself.

4. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.04.2022 impugned before this Court is reproduced as under:

"Moreover, the applicant/respondent in his application has nowhere mentioned as to what new material facts have surfaced in the income affidavit filed by petitioner in the year 2017. He has further failed to disclose as to what are the material facts which need to be examined for just decision of the case. The application filed by respondent is quiet vague and does not disclose the material particulars which warrant recall of petitioner for her re-examination and cross-examination. The income affidavit has been filed by petitioner in terms of directions of the court dated 28.08.2015 and 27.03.2017. Respondent was also directed to file the income affidavit in terms of judgment in "Kusum Sharma vs. Mahindcr Shar