Delhi High Court
Kailash Juneja vs Preeti Juneja on 25 April, 2012
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 321/2011
% Date of Decision: 25.04.2012
KAILASH JUNEJA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr B.P. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
PREETI JUNEJA ..... Respondent
Through Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL)
*
1. The petitioner/husband has filed a divorce petition against the
respondent/wife which is listed for final arguments before the learned trial
court. A challenge has been made to the order dated 18.12.2010 by which
opportunity of cross-examination of RW-1 i.e. the respondent/wife has been
closed.
2. The counsel for appellant submits that the respondent had filed her
affidavit only on 16.12.2010. On the said date, the petitioner had given
maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent and due to non-availability of
counsel for petitioner/husband, the case was adjourned for 18.12.2010
subject to costs of Rs.1000/-.
3. Even on 18.12.2010, the counsel for petitioner could not appear and
the learned trial court has closed the opportunity of cross-examination of
RW-1. It is stated that on the said date RE was closed and the matter was
listed for final arguments.
4. The learned counsel submits that till date arguments have not been
heard and the matter is listed before trial court on 28.04.2012. It is further
submitted that the right of cross-examination is an important right and if the
same is not given, great prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in as much
as evidence of respondent/wife will go unrebutted. It is further submitted
that the same will also have serious consequences on the petitioner/husband
as petitioner/husband would not be in a position to demolish the stand of
respondent.
5. The respondent has all through appeared in person. She has opposed
the present petition and has contended that keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for any opportunity to
cross-examine the respondent.
6. I have considered the submissions made and perused the material on
record.
7. It may be noticed that the case was listed for the first time for evidence
of respondent on 16.12.2010. On the said date, respondent/wife has filed her
evidence by way of affidavit. The case was then adjourned to 18.12.2010.
On the said date counsel for petitioner/husband was not present. The
impugned order has serious consequences on the petitioner/husband as the
evidence of respondent will go unrebutted as right to cross-examine has been
closed which is a valuable right of petitioner/husband. The petitioner
should not be allowed to suffer due to lapse on the part of counsel.
8. In the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 18.12.2010 by
which right of the petitioner/husband to cross-examine the respondent has
been closed, is set aside subject to costs of Rs.5000/- to the respondent. The
petitioner is given one opportunity to cross-examine the respondent/wife.
The parties will appear on 28.04.2012 before the trial court and the petitioner
shall pay the costs of Rs.5000/- to the respondent and the trial court shall
give a suitable date for cross-examination of RW-1. It is clarified that only
one opportunity will be given to the petitioner for cross-examination and
prior to that he will also clear all the arrears of maintenance pendente lite.
The petition stands disposed of.
LCR be sent back forthwith.
CM 5703/2011
In view of above, no further orders are required on this application.
The same stands disposed of accordingly.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
APRIL 25 , 2012
srb
