Family courts should not adopt hyper-technical approach to close right to cross examine: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently quashed an order of a family court that rejected a woman's plea to cross examine her husband in a matrimonial dispute . [Chetna Rathee vs Chahit Kundu].Justice Rekha Palli observed that while matrimonial matters are to be decided expeditiously, family courts should not hurriedly close the right of the parties to cross examine by adopting an overly technical approach.."In matters like the present when the Court is dealing with petitions pertaining to Family Law, where the parties are already at loggerheads with each other, even though the matters are required to be decided expeditiously, the Court is expected to not adopt such a hyper-technical approach and close the right of the parties to cross examine in such a hurried manner," the Court said..The woman argued that the family court's order was passed without proper consideration of the fact that she was only given a single opportunity to cross-examine her husband. On the day of the cross-examination, her counsel requested more time as they had not been provided with a copy of her husband's evidence by way of an affidavit..Further, her counsel on the day of cross examination was to appear before the High Court in another case and had therefore, sought an adjournment, which was denied without any justifiable reason. .Her application seeking permission to cross examine her husband, moved on the very same day, was rejected by the family court. This compelled her to move an application seeking restoration of her right to cross examine her husband, which was also rejected..On the other hand, the respondent-husband supported the challenged order, asserting that the petitioner had been presenting contradictory arguments before the family court. He also highlighted the defiant attitude of the petitioner's counsel. In light of these factors, the respondent argued that the court's decision to reject the application was justified..He further claimed that a copy of the evidence was sent to the registered email ID of the petitioner's counsel and therefore, his plea that a copy of the same was not available with him was rightly rejected. He, therefore, sought rejection of the petition..The High Court took the view that even if the plea of the petitioner's counsel about not having received the evidence or of being busy in a matter before the High Court was discarded, the family court should have considered the grave and irreparable prejudice that would be caused to the petitioner by closing her right to cross examine her husband, who was the most crucial witness in the case..Therefore, the Court allowed the plea, setting aside the assailed order subject to a payment of ₹25,000 as costs for the inconvenience caused to the respondent and directed the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent on the next date of hearing in the Family Court..Advocates Prateek Goswami, Neeraj Gupta and Rajat Asija appeared for the petitioner while the respondent was represented by advocate Shailender Dahiya..[Read Order]