The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Chetna Rathee vs Sh. Chahit Kundu consisting of Justice Rekha Palli held that in matters 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.
Facts:
This petition was filed by an estranged wife, who was the respondent in HMA No. 711/2019. She sought to assail the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Family Court. Vide the impugned order, the learned Family Court had rejected the petitioner’s application seeking restoration of her right to cross-examine her husband, who had appeared as PW-1.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that the Family Court denied the petitioner's request to cross-examine the respondent, even though the petitioner had only been given one chance to do so on May 30, 2022, when their lawyer had asked for more time because they had not received a copy of the respondent's affidavit. It was also contended that the petitioner’s lawyer had to attend to another court matter and requested an adjournment, but it was denied for no valid reason. As a result, the right to cross-examine the most important witness was closed on the same day. The request to cross-examine the respondent was also denied, forcing them to file another request to restore their right to cross-examine the crucial witness, which was also rejected.
Respondent: The petitioner and their counsel were found to be taking contradictory stands and being defiant before the court. As a result, the court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's request to recall a witness for cross-examination. Additionally, the respondent’s affidavit had been sent to the petitioner’s counsel via registered email, so the claim that it was not available on May 30, 2022, was disregarded by the court.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench stated that although the petitioner’s behaviour in court was not appreciated, it was only on one occasion that they failed to cross-examine a crucial witness. Even if the petitioner’s excuse for not receiving evidence or being busy with another case is not accepted, the court should have considered the grave harm caused by denying the right to cross-examine.
It further opined that when the court deals with Family Law cases where the parties are already in conflict, they should not rush to close the right of the parties to cross-examine by taking a hyper-technical approach, even if the cases need to be resolved quickly.
It stated that the petition should be granted and the petitioner should have the chance to cross-examine the respondent/PW-1. The petitioner and her counsel’s statements should be considered, but the petitioner must pay Rs.25,000 in costs. Both parties agreed that the money should be given to a deserving widow who lost her husband during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Judgment:
The Bench set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to an unemployed widow who lost her husband during the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner was given one opportunity to cross-examine PW-1, and the matter was listed for further proceedings in the Family Court on 24.07.2023. The respondent/PW-1 was required to be present for cross-examination, and no further adjournments were to be granted. However, if the cross-examination could not be completed on the same day, the Family Court could grant another date to complete it.
Case: Smt. Chetna Rathee vs Sh. Chahit Kundu
Citation: CM(M) 34/2023 & CM APPL. 1100/2023
Bench: Justice Rekha Palli
For Petitioner: Mr. Prateek Goswami, Mr. Neeraj Gupta and Mr. Rajat Asija, Adv.
For Respondent: Mr. Shailender Dahiya, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
