The right to cross-examine a witness is fundamental and must be protected to ensure a fair trial.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition to set aside the order passed in IA.No.4 of 2025 in HMOP No.1669 of 2017 dated 16.06.2025 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

2. Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A. No. 4 of 2025 in HMOP No. 1669 of 2017, the petitioner/wife has filed this revision.

3. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner filed an application seeking to recall and further examine her husband, stating that certain important questions were inadvertently omitted during cross-examination. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. Aggrieved by the same, she has preferred this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the earlier cross-examination, some important questions were inadvertently not put to the witness, and therefore she sought recall of the husband for further cross-

examination.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent strongly objected, stating that the cross-examination of the husband had taken place long back, in the year 2022. He contended that the petitioner had not cooperated with the proceedings and had failed to comply with the conditional orders imposed by the Court. According to the respondent, the present application was filed only to prolong the proceedings.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances, if an opportunity is denied, it may result in prejudice to the petitioner by depriving her of a valuable right of cross-examination. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court in IA No.4 of 2025 in HMOP No.1669 of 2017 dated 16.06.2025 is set aside, and the petitioner is directed to complete the cross-examination of PW1 within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The parties shall cooperate with the Trial Court for the expeditious disposal of the case. If the revision petitioner fails to cooperate, the Trial Court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that due to the non-cooperation of the wife, the proceedings were delayed, and he was unable to pay the maintenance regularly. However, he expressed readiness to comply with the maintenance order, though he stated that he is not in a position to pay the entire arrears in a lump sum, if insisted upon before the Trial Court.

8. Considering the conduct of the revision petitioner as well as the submissions made by the respondent/husband, this Court directs the respondent to continue to pay the interim maintenance regularly, without default, hereafter and also to meet the educational expenses as directed by the Trial Court.

9. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.