### Repeated failure to cross-examine despite multiple opportunities warrants dismissal of recall application to prevent vexatious litigation.

The Respondent No. 1 (husband) filed a petition for divorce (M.C. No. 2270/2019) in April 2019.

Over a period of six years, the Petitioner (wife) consistently failed to cross-examine the husband (PW-1) despite multiple applications to reopen the case and recall witnesses being allowed by the Family Court.

Even after a previous High Court order in W.P. No. 9760/2024 directed her to cross-examine PW-1 "at a stretch" without delay, the Petitioner continued seeking adjournments and conducting cross-examination in fragmented parts.

On June 9, 2025, the Family Court finally closed the cross-examination.

After the matter was posted for arguments, the Petitioner filed I.A. No. XXX under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC to recall PW-1 once more.

The Family Court dismissed the application on November 28, 2025, leading to the present writ petition.

Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the Petitioner’s application to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination after repeated failures to comply with court timelines and specific directions.

Whether the Petitioner's conduct amounted to a deliberate attempt to protract proceedings and abuse the process of law.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

It relied on Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which provides the court discretionary power to recall and examine witnesses, and Section 151 of the CPC regarding inherent powers.

The Court emphasized that while Family Courts should be accessible, they cannot be used to frustrate proceedings or cause undue inconvenience, nor can the mandate of law be breached to accommodate the "whims and fancies" of a party.

The Court observed that the procedural history revealed a pattern of "gross negligence" and intentional delay by the Petitioner.

Despite the husband paying over Rs. 27,00,000/- in interim maintenance, the Petitioner repeatedly stalled the trial by filing numerous interlocutory applications and failing to appear for cross-examination even when time was fixed at her counsel's convenience.

The Court noted that the Petitioner ignored a clear previous mandate from the High Court to complete cross-examination without delay.

The Court held that a liberal approach cannot be adopted simply because a party is a woman if it opens "flood gates of taking adjournments".

It found the Family Court’s decision to dismiss the recall application highly appropriate given the Petitioner's vexatious attitude and the need to prevent the litigation from spanning decades.

The Court held that the Petitioner had intentionally dragged on the matter and wasted judicial time.

Consequently, the Petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Sainik Welfare Fund within three weeks.

The Court further ruled that the Petitioner shall only be permitted to participate in the ongoing Family Court proceedings upon producing sufficient proof of the payment of these costs.