After Wife Cross-Examined Husband On Four Dates, Karnataka HC Rejects Bid To Question Him Again At Arguments

The husband’s divorce petition and the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights were clubbed before the Family Court, Udupi.

After evidence had closed and the cases were posted for arguments, the wife applied under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to recall the husband (RW.1) for further cross-examination.

She said his statement of assets and liabilities created a need for further questioning.

The Family Court dismissed the application, noting that the statement had been filed in a separate maintenance case, that the husband had already been cross-examined at length, and that the proceedings had been pending for several years.

The wife challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC concerns the court’s power to recall a witness, and Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers; the wife relied on these provisions to seek further cross-examination.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court’s reasoning turned on the circumstances of the application: whether further examination was necessary in the cases before the Family Court, given the issues in those proceedings and the cross-examination already conducted.

The judgment cited no precedent or further statutory test.

The Court found no basis to recall RW.1 in the divorce and restitution proceedings.

The statement of assets and liabilities had been filed in a separate maintenance case, not in the proceedings under consideration; neither party had sought maintenance or permanent alimony in those proceedings.

The husband had admitted his occupation and earnings, and the wife had already cross-examined him at length, including on income.

In those circumstances, the Court found no necessity for further cross-examination and considered that the Family Court had properly taken account of the proceedings’ duration and the need to bring the litigation to an end.

Any challenge to the statement of assets and liabilities could be raised in the matter in which it had been filed.

It dismissed the writ petition and declined to set aside the order refusing to recall RW.1.