Family Courts Must Ordinarily Be Lenient In Matrimonial Disputes And Not Apply Rules Of Procedure Strictly: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed a wife's petition against closure of her right to cross-examine her husband in divorce proceedings, observing that Family Courts must strike a delicate balance between need for expeditious disposal and giving of fair opportunity to a party to present case. “Keeping in view the fact that this is a matrimonial dispute, the learned...
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed a wife's petition against closure of her right to cross-examine her husband in divorce proceedings, observing that Family Courts must strike a delicate balance between need for expeditious disposal and giving of fair opportunity to a party to present case.
“Keeping in view the fact that this is a matrimonial dispute, the learned Family Court should be more lenient than it would be had it been a commercial dispute between the parties. A matrimonial dispute involves relationships and, therefore, requires a little more sensitivity by the learned Family Court.”
Analyzing the factual matrix of the case, Justice Navin Chawla concluded that the delay occasioned was not attributable to the petitioner alone. Moreover, considering that the dispute was matrimonial, the Family Court should have been more lenient and instead of closing the petitioner's valuable right to cross-examine, could have imposed conditions on her.
The petitioner had filed the petition aggrieved by the Family Court's orders, whereby her right to cross-examine the respondent-husband and other witnesses was closed. Her case was that the delay in cross-examination of the respondent was occasioned on account of multiple factors, including the Covid-19 pandemic, her children's examinations, her father's heart attack, and inability to make note of the correct date of hearing.
The court opined that although the petitioner could be accused of taking adjournments and not cross-examining the respondent for a few dates, the major reason for delay was the Covid-19 pandemic. On some occasions, it was the respondent who did not appear. As such, the Family Court erred in attributing the entire delay to the petitioner.
Insofar as the second impugned order discharged certain witnesses, who appeared for the first time before the court, and closed the petitioner's right to cross-examine them as well, Justice Chawla said that the Family Court could have given the petitioner atleast one chance to cross-examine said witnesses. But it did not even explore options other than closing her valuable right to cross-examine.
Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the respondent-husband, and other witnesses, subject to deposit of cost. Before parting with the order, Justice Chawla however warned that the petitioner would not be entitled to any further indulgence by the Family Court or the High Court.
Advocates Tarang Gupta, Vikrant Kumar and Kartikeya Sharma appeared for petitioner-wife
Advocates Vinod Malhotra, Nikhil Malhotra, Vansh Sharma, Anirudh Gupta and Neha Malhotra appeared for respondent-husband
Case Title: Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1328