Megha Tara Alias Megha Sharma vs Sharan Tara & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12.10.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010435762026
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 346/2026 & CM APPL. 62529/2026
MEGHA TARA ALIAS MEGHA SHARMA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Mukesh M.Goel and Mr.
Vishesh, Advocates.
versus

SHARAN TARA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: appearance not given.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)




1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) and (4) of
the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order dated 22.08.2026 passed
by learned Family Court in HMA No. 1896/2023, whereby, the
learned Family Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant
wife for recalling of the order dated 27.09.2025 closing the right of the
appellant to cross-examine the respondent.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present appeal are that
the marriage between the parties took place on 20.02.2022. Due to
matrimonial discord, the respondent husband instituted a divorce
petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(‘HMA’).
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 346/2026 Page 1 of 5

21.10.2026 16:16

3. During the said proceedings, the learned Family Court framed
the issues vide order dated 15.07.2024 and adjourned the matter to
16.12.2024 for the petitioner’s evidence. On the said date, learned
Presiding Officer was on leave.
4. The examination of witnesses commenced. The petitioner-
husband examined himself as PW-1 and was being cross examined.
The impugned order reads that various dates have been fixed for cross
examination of PW-1, i.e., the respondent herein.

5. A copy of the proceedings has been annexed. The order dated
13.06.2025 indicates that the respondent was cross examined in part
and the case was thereafter, put for 19.07.2025 for further
examination.
6. The order dated 19.07.2025 reveals that the respondent, i.e., the
appellant herein, requested for an adjournment on the ground that her
counsel was held up in a separate case. The same was not objected to
and the case was adjourned to 26.07.2025.
7. On 26.07.2025, PW-1, i.e., the husband, was further cross-
examined and the case was adjourned to 01.09.2025. The order dated
01.09.2025 indicates that the counsel for the respondent had sent a
request for postponing the date of cross-examination as he was held up
in another matter, which was again not objected to.
8. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 09.09.2025. On
09.09.2025, when the matter came up before the Local Commissioner
who was engaged to cross examine the PW-1. The counsel for the
respondent submitted that he will not be conducting the case further
and therefore, the respondent wife sought an adjournment to engage a
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 346/2026 Page 2 of 5

21.10.2026 16:16

new counsel. Though, the said request was objected by the counsel for
the husband, the case was adjourned to 10.09.2025, i.e., the next day.
On 10.09.2025, the matter was again adjourned to 27.09.2025 as the
respondent wife could not engage a new counsel.
9. On the next date of hearing which was on 27.09.2025, it was
apprised that the original counsel would continue. However, the
learned Family Court found fault with this approach of the appellant
herein, in trying to seek various adjournments by stating that the
previous counsel has been discharged and new counsel was being
engaged. In view of these adverse inferences and the conduct of the
appellant, the learned Family Court vide order dated 27.09.2025,
closed the right of the appellant to further cross examine.
10. Thereafter, an application was filed by the appellant seeking
recall of PW-1 for further cross examination. The same was dismissed
vide the impugned order stating that the appellant herein i.e., the
respondent before the learned Family Court, is trying to delay the
proceedings.
11. The learned Family Court found fault with the approach of the
appellant in making contrary submissions on 09.09.2025, when she
stated that she will engage a new counsel. However, after two dates,
the very same counsel appeared for the appellant before the learned
Family Court. In view of the same, the application filed on behalf of
the appellant seeking recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination,
was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the adjournments
were taken only with the consent of the counsel for the respondent
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 346/2026 Page 3 of 5

21.10.2026 16:16

herein and it was primarily the adjustment of the dates by two
counsels as the counsel was busy elsewhere. He states that the counsel
has indeed decided to return the brief back and only because of the
fact that he had conducted the case for such a long time that he
decided to get back into the case.
13. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
14. A perusal of the order sheets indicate that most of the
adjournments have been taken by consent.

15. In the opinion of this Court, the delay is not that substantial or
the conduct of the appellant is such that this Court can come to a
conclusion that the appellant is unnecessarily trying to delay the
matter. The respondent has been cross examined at least on two
occasions.
16. It is well settled that all the rules of procedure are handmaid of
justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law
may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of
prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an
adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the
opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation,
unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute. The
provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be
construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet
extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. Procedure is not to be
treated as a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to
justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the
mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 346/2026 Page 4 of 5

21.10.2026 16:16

[Refer to: R. N. Jadi & Brothers & Ors. v. Subhash Chandra, (2007) 6
SCC 420 ].
17. In the interest of justice, this Court deems it expedient to grant
one more opportunity to the appellant, subject to payment of costs of
Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the counsel for the
respondent. Let the bank details of counsel for the respondent be
supplied to the counsel for the appellant.
18. In view of the request made by the counsel for the respondent,
the cross examination be commenced from 16.11.2026. The cross-
examination be completed within the next four dates of hearing.
19. List the matter for the purpose of cross-examination on
16.11.2026 before the learned Family Court.
20. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications also stands disposed of.
21. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Family
Court.


SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

RENU BHATNAGAR, J
OCTOBER 12, 2026/ ng/sm
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 346/2026 Page 5 of 5

21.10.2026 16:16