IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:19.12.2025 Seema Gyanchandani … Petitioner Versus Rahul Gyanchandani ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Mayank Arora, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conferencing).

Ms. Shubreet Kaur Saron, Advocate, Ms. Sukriti Gupta, Advocate for caveator/respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present petition has been instituted assailing the orders dated 12.11.2025 and 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Gurugram, during the pendency of the trial, whereby the petitioner’s right to lead evidence has been unjustly curtailed. The impugned orders have been passed in the backdrop of ongoing matrimonial litigation between the petitioner and the respondent, inter alia, concerning the custody of their minor son, born on 20.05.2013.

2. The petition was instituted by the respondent on 05.07.2023 and is presently being contested by the petitioner in the capacity of respondent therein. During the pendency of the proceedings, while the petitioner was under cross-examination, certain documents comprising audio and video recordings as well as photographs were put to her, and she was confronted with the said audio-visual material.

2.1. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved an appropriate application seeking issuance of necessary orders and directions from the learned Court, inter alia, on the grounds that the audio and video recordings were selectively produced, taken out of context, and introduced with a mala fide intent to mislead the Court. It was further averred that the petitioner herself is in possession of certain audio and video recordings which, if permitted to be placed on record, would demonstrate the falsity of the case set up by the respondent and his witnesses.

2.2. The petitioner specifically pleaded that she was confronted with the said electronic material without being afforded any meaningful opportunity to contest its veracity, authenticity, admissibility, or relevance in accordance with law. Consequently, she sought permission for her re- examination and also prayed for recall of the respondent-petitioner as PW-1 and their daughter as PW-2 for the purposes of further cross-examination with respect to the contents of the pen drive containing the impugned material.

3. The said application, after hearing the parties, came to be decided by the learned Family Court vide order dated 12.11.2025. In paragraph No. 7 of the impugned order, the learned Court observed that the petitioner was at liberty to place on record any material in her possession to rebut the evidence or material produced by the respondent, particularly since her evidence had not yet been concluded. The learned Family Court further observed that it is not strictly bound by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and is empowered to devise and regulate its own procedure. On the basis of the said observations, it was directed that the petitioner/respondent would be afforded two opportunities to conclude her evidence.

3.1. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid observations and liberty purportedly granted, when the petitioner/respondent sought to file an additional affidavit by way of evidence in terms of the order dated 12.11.2025, the learned Court declined to permit her to tender the additional evidence affidavit or to re-examine herself. Furthermore, upon the petitioner’s prayer for summoning of their minor son as a witness, the learned Court also refused to grant the said request.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition invoking the appropriate jurisdiction of this Court. Upon service of notice, the respondent entered appearance by filing a caveat application and is duly represented through counsel to contest the present revision petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties in detail, considered their submissions advanced during