This Appeal from Order has been preferred under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 95 of 2021, whereby the application filed by the respondent seeking restoration of the opportunity for her cross-examination has been allowed and the objections filed by the appellant have been rejected.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a divorce suit (Original Suit No.95 of 2021) is pending between the parties before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. During the course of the trial, the respondent was required to subject herself to cross-examination. The learned Family Court granted opportunities for the said purpose; however, the respondent could not be cross-examined and, consequently, by order dated 06.08.2024, the opportunity for her cross-examination was closed. Thereafter, an application seeking restoration of the said opportunity was moved on behalf of the respondent, which came to be rejected by the learned Family Court by order dated 27.08.2024. The proceedings thereafter continued and the matter reached the stage of final hearing.

3. Subsequently, the respondent moved another application seeking restoration of the opportunity for her cross-examination. The appellant filed objections opposing the said application. Upon consideration of the material available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 05.02.2026, allowed the respondent's application, subject to payment of costs of ₹1,000/-, and restored the opportunity of her cross-examination by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal from Order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is wholly unsustainable in law and has been passed in complete disregard of the settled principles governing judicial proceedings. It is contended that the respondent had been granted sufficient opportunities to subject herself to cross-examination during the course of the trial, but despite repeated adjournments, she failed to avail the same, whereupon her opportunity was rightly closed by order dated 06.08.2024. It is further submitted that the respondent had thereafter moved an application seeking restoration of the said opportunity of being cross-examined, which was duly considered and rejected by the learned Family Court by order dated 27.08.2024. The said order was never challenged before any superior forum and, therefore, attained finality. According to the learned counsel, once the earlier application seeking identical relief had been rejected, it was not open to the respondent to maintain a subsequent application for the very same relief on substantially similar grounds.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, by entertaining and allowing the subsequent application, the learned Family Court has, in effect, reviewed and recalled its earlier order without there being any statutory provision conferring such power. It is submitted that what could not have been done directly, has been impermissibly achieved indirectly through the impugned order. It is also argued that the conduct of the respondent throughout the proceedings reflects a deliberate attempt to delay the adjudication of the matrimonial dispute. According to the appellant, despite the closure of evidence and rejection of the earlier restoration application, the respondent continued to seek indulgence from the Court, thereby unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the matter had already reached the stage of final hearing and was fixed for judgment, and therefore there existed no justification for reopening the proceedings at such an advanced stage.

6. Learned counsel