The Family Courts Act, 1984, specifically Sections 15 and 16, requires the opportunity for cross-examination and does not render evidence taken on affidavits to be illegal.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment dated 4.1.2017 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Rohtak on the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 vide which Rs. 4,000/- per month was allowed as maintenance to the respondent.

2. The issue for examination in this revision first is whether the husband has a right to cross-examine the witness in a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 and could a condition be put.

3. Record was called for and has been perused.

4. The petitioner here disputes the relationship between the parties. Santra by way of her evidence tendered her affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence and closed her evidence. No right of cross-examination was given. The case was adjourned for respondent's evidence. Surma did not appear on the adjourned hearings and then he moved an application seeking permission to cross-examine the respondent which was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 4.10.2016 and permission was granted to cross-examine the witness with a rider that cross-examination would be conducted in the presence of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner here did not appear on the adjourned dates and right of cross-examination was closed. Thereafter he moved an application seeking opportunity to cross-examine the wife. The Family Court observed that the cross-examination was to be conducted in the presence of Surma but the petitioner (here) did not appear on the adjourned dates and had failed to comply with the order and it dismissed the application vide order dated 19.12.2016. It finally disposed of the petition allowing maintenance to the wife.

6. The wife had moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 for interim maintenance. The respondent claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. However, the respondent before the Court below denied the relationship between them. It was pleaded that marriage was never solemnized. No document was placed by the applicant to prove the marriage. The Court below dismissed the application for interim maintenance vide order dated 23.1.2015 observing that she had failed to show a prima-facie case in her favour.

7. It was the case of the applicant that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the marriage was solemnized 20 years ago. On the other hand, the respondent (below) denied the relationship between the parties and the marriage. Neither the date of marriage was given by the applicant nor any document was placed on record to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner.

8. It would be useful to reproduce section 10, 15, 16 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 ('Act' for short) which read as under:-

10. Procedure generally.-

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings [other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such court. -(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings [other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such court."

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) o