IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (128)

Date of Decision:-03.02.2026 RAJIV KUMAR … Petitioner Versus SARITA ... Respondent -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate, and Mr. Himanshu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. Petitioner filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula Camp at Kalka, whereby, the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by the order of the Court when the case was pending for cross-

examination of the petitioner, which was only partly recorded.

2. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage. The petitioner was contested by the respondent. Parties were put to trial. Evidence of the petitioner was going on. Petitioner examined himself in chief. His cross-examination was in progress. On 21.07.2025, his cross-examination could not be concluded and matter was adjourned to 28.07.2025. On that day, petitioner who is serving in ITBP, could not obtain leave as leave on such a short interval was not allowed. Petitioner moved an application before the Court on that day itself that his cross-examination be conducted through video conferencing and he would remain present on the date and time as fixed by the Court but his application remained pending with no order having been passed on the same and on 15.12.2025, when he failed to appear for further cross-examination, his evidence was closed by the order after overlooking the fact that petitioner is a serving official in para-military forces and his due leaves were exhausted in the Court proceedings by the month of December and he has not intentionally failed to appear but was on account of the fact that he was not allowed leave.

3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the order was passed without considering his application for further examination through video conferencing in view of the exigencies of service of the petitioner and his inability to get leave, so, one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to complete his cross-

examination and his cross-examination be ordered through video conferencing.

4. I have gone through the paper book carefully.

5. The impugned order reads as under:-

“Today the case was fixed for cross-examination of PW1 Rajeev Kumar as well as remaining evidence of the petitioner subject to last opportunity. Learned counsel for the petitioner again sought an adjournment for evidence. Adjournment is highly opposed. Heard. Petitioner has already availed twenty opportunities for concluding his evidence. The case is pertains to the year 2020. Therefore, there is no justification to adjourn the case for the same purpose. Hence, evidence of the petitioner is hereby closed by Court order. Now to come up on 22.12.2025 for evidence of the respondent.

6. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has not discussed about the application moved by the petitioner on 28.07.2025 with regard to his prayer for his cross-examination being recorded through video conferencing as he being an employee in ITBP is unable to get leaves from the competent authorities on such short intervals.

7. Considering all the facts and circumstances, it is a fit case where revisional jurisdiction as vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised and the learned Family Court, Panchkula Camp at Kalka is directed to allow the petitioner one effective opportunity for his remaining cross-examination and his cross-examination be allowed through video conferencing.

8. According, the instant civil revision petition stands disposed of.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

3^rd February, 2026 JUDGE

S. Pathania