Wife Gets One More Chance To Cross-Examine Husband After Mostly Consensual Adjournments, Subject To ₹20,000 Costs

The husband instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

During those proceedings, the wife’s counsel sought or required adjustments to several dates fixed for the husband’s cross-examination as PW-1; most adjournments were by consent.

After the wife sought time to engage a new counsel, her original counsel appeared again.

The Family Court closed her right to further cross-examine PW-1 on 27 September 2025 and later dismissed her application to recall him for further cross-examination, finding that she was delaying the proceedings.

The wife appealed against the dismissal of that application.

1. Whether the Family Court was justified in refusing to recall the husband, PW-1, for further cross-examination and thereby denying the wife a further opportunity to cross-examine him.

2. Whether, in the circumstances, the wife’s conduct and the delay justified closing her right to further cross-examination.

The appeal was brought under Sections 19(1) and 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court applied the principle that procedural rules are intended to advance justice and should not ordinarily deprive a party of an opportunity to participate in the adjudicative process; procedural powers should be construed to enable courts to meet the ends of justice.

It relied on R. N. Jadi & Brothers v. Subhash Chandra, (2007) 6 SCC 420, for the proposition that procedure is the handmaid, not the mistress, of justice.

The Court considered the order sheets and found that most adjournments had been taken by consent, including dates adjusted because counsel was occupied elsewhere.

Although the wife had indicated that she would engage new counsel and her original counsel later resumed the case, the Court concluded that the delay was not substantial and that her conduct did not establish an attempt to unnecessarily delay proceedings.

Given that PW-1 had already been cross-examined on at least two occasions, the Court held that the circumstances did not warrant denying the wife a further opportunity in the interests of justice.

The cross-examination was directed to commence before the Family Court on 16 November 2026 and be completed within the next four hearing dates.

The appeal and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.