The right to effective cross-examination is essential in maintenance proceedings to ensure fairness, and the court provided a final opportunity conditioned upon cost payment.

ORAL ORDER

This is a husband's petition assailing the order of the learned Magistrate who has declined to recall the order by rejecting the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.. This petition arises out of a maintenance proceedings initiated by the respondent/complainant.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Though there appears to be some degree of laxity on the part of the petitioner/husband in not effectively availing the opportunities granted for cross- examination of the respondent/wife on earlier dates, the records disclose that the learned Magistrate, who had initially shown indulgence by allowing the application for cross-examination in the first session, has subsequently treated the matter as “no cross.” This was because, in the second session, the counsel for the petitioner, who had already been granted the benefit of an order to cross- examine, once again failed to proceed with the cross- examination and, in fact, declined to do so. It appears that this conduct of the petitioner’s counsel prompted the learned Magistrate to pass yet another adverse order against the petitioner, recording that there is “no cross” on his behalf.

4. The circumstances of the case unmistakably reflect that the conduct of the petitioner’s counsel was grossly unfair. Despite the learned Magistrate adopting a lenient approach by granting an opportunity in the first session and imposing a modest cost of Rs.5,000/-, the counsel did not seize the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent/wife. The order sheet dated 25.06.2025 clearly records that, even though the petitioner was personally present before the Court, his counsel expressed unwillingness to cross-examine the respondent/wife. This conduct shows that the petitioner’s counsel failed to discharge his professional duty with diligence and seriousness, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Be that as it may, since the proceedings in question relate to a petition for maintenance, it is of paramount importance that the process remains fair and that both parties are given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Denial of an effective right of cross- examination in such proceedings would, in effect, amount to denial of natural justice. Therefore, in order to balance the equities and to ensure fairness in procedure, this Court is inclined to grant one final indulgence to the petitioner/husband. However, such indulgence cannot be unconditional. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner/husband shall be permitted to cross-examine the respondent/wife only upon payment of a further cost of Rs.15,000/-. Such cost shall be paid to the respondent/wife in open Court on the next date of hearing, and only upon such payment will the petitioner be permitted to proceed with the cross-examination.

6. In view of the above discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed (ii) The impugned orders dated 25.06.2025 and 02.07.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.11/2025 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapura are hereby quashed and set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/wife in open Court on the next date of hearing.

(iii) The petitioner shall thereafter be permitted to cross-examine the respondent/wife, which shall positively take place on 13.10.2025.