- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
A Petitioner v. T
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, with notice issued to the petitioner on 5th July 2017. The respondent sought transfer of the divorce petition to Ambala before the Supreme Court, which issued notice and stayed further proceedings. The transfer petition was dismissed on 1st December 2017, vacating the interim stay. On 3rd January 2018, the Family Court directed the petitioner to file the written statement within two weeks and fixed the case for 6th February 2018. On that date, the petitioner sought more time to file the written statement, which was declined, and the Family Court closed the petitioner's right to file the written statement and framed issues. The case was subsequently listed multiple times for counseling.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Family Court was justified in closing the petitioner's right to file the written statement on 6th February 2018?
- Whether delay in filing the written statement can be condoned when parties are engaged in settlement negotiations?
- What is the proper approach of Family Courts in matrimonial litigation regarding the closing of procedural rights such as filing written statements and cross-examination?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner's written statement was ready at the time of the hearing.
- An advance copy of the written statement would be provided to the respondent's counsel on the same day.
- The petitioner would not seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson v. Lava International Limited, 226 DLT 342 (2016) | Delay in filing written statement may be condoned if parties are negotiating settlement during pendency. | The Court applied this principle to justify condoning the petitioner's delay due to ongoing counseling and settlement efforts. |
| Dr. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir v. Amrit Pal Singh, ILR (2003) I Delhi 577 | Delay in filing written statement can be condoned in suits involving family members where amicable settlement is sought. | Reinforced the approach to prioritize settlement efforts over procedural strictness in family disputes. |
| Gajanan Laxman Bhalchandra v. Rangrao Amrutrao Deshpande, 1980 Mah LJ 821 | Cross-examination is a powerful tool to separate truth from falsehood and should not be unduly restricted. | The Court emphasized the importance of preserving procedural rights like cross-examination in matrimonial cases to ensure justice. |
| Nandram Khemraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 Cri.L.J. 1270 | Cross-examination is essential for the defense to test the veracity of evidence and separate truth from falsehood. | The Court cited this to underscore the necessity of allowing procedural rights to avoid injustice in litigation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the Family Court's order closing the petitioner's right to file the written statement was passed in undue haste, especially since the proceedings had been stayed by the Supreme Court until 1st December 2017. After the stay was lifted, the Family Court granted only two weeks to file the written statement and quickly closed that right on 6th February 2018. The case was then pending only for counseling, indicating ongoing settlement discussions. The Court referenced established principles that delays in filing written statements should be condoned when parties negotiate settlements during pendency, citing relevant precedents. The Court further emphasized the importance of preserving procedural rights such as filing written statements and cross-examination in matrimonial litigation to enable the search for truth and justice. The Court concluded that closing such rights prematurely undermines the ability to separate truth from falsehood, which is crucial in matrimonial disputes.
Holding and Implications
The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6th February 2018 is set aside.
The Family Court is directed to accept the petitioner's written statement on the fixed date. The decision restores the petitioner's procedural right to file the written statement, ensuring that the case proceeds with due regard to principles of fairness and justice. No broader precedent was established beyond reinforcing the importance of safeguarding procedural rights in matrimonial litigation.
$~55-FM * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%thDate of Decision: 28 May, 2018
+ CM(M) 307/2018 and CM No.9853/2018 (stay) A ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mayank Khurana, Advocate versus
T .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Nitin Kalra, Advocate for Respondent along with respondent in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6thFebruary, 2018 whereby the learned Family Court closed the petitioner's right to file the written statement.
2. The record of the Family Court has been perused. The respondent instituted the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty in which the notice was issued to the petitioner on 5thJuly, 2017. The respondent, on receipt of the summons, approached the Supreme Court for transfer of the divorce petition to Ambala in which the Supreme Court issued the notice to the respondent and stayed further proceedings in the
1
divorce petition. The matter was, therefore, kept pending for awaiting the outcome of the transfer petition. However, the transfer petition was dismissed on 1stDecember, 2017 and the interim stay was vacated. On 3rd January, 2018 the Family Court directed the petitioner to file the written statement within fortnight and the case was fixed for 6thFebruary, 2018. On 6thFebruary, 2018, the petitioner sought further time to file the written statement which was declined and the learned Family Court closed the right to file the written statement and framed the issues. The case was thereafter taken up on 22ndFebruary, 2018, 15thMarch, 2018, 28thMarch, 2018, 4th April, 2018, 18thApril, 2018, 5thMay, 2018 and 9thMay, 2018 for counselling.
3. This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 6thFebruary, 2018 passed by the Family Court in closing the right to file the written statement appears to be passed in undue haste. It is matter of record that the proceedings before the Family Court remained stayed by the Supreme Court upto 1stDecember, 2017 when the transfer petition was dismissed. The matter came up thereafter on 3rdJanuary, 2018 when the Family Court granted just two weeks time and on 6thFebruary, 2018, the Family Court rushed to close the right to file the written statement. After closing the right to file the written statement, the case is just pending for counseling. If case listed for counseling/settlement, this Court is unable to comprehend what was the haste in closing the valuable right to file the written statement. In
Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson v. Lava International Limited, (2016)
226 DLT 342, this Court held that if parties are negotiating settlement during the pendency of a matter, then the Court will condone the delay in filing of written statement due to such settlement talks. The relevant portion of the
2
said judgement is reproduced herein under:
"22. Even otherwise, it is a well settled principle of law that if parties are negotiating settlement during the pendency of a matter, then the Court will condone the delay in filing of written statement due to such settlement talks. This Court, in its decision in Dr. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir v. Amrit Pal Singh, ILR (2003) I Delhi 577, inter alia held that:
"5. Having heard, counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the respective pleas urged before me, I am of the view that this is a case where the delay in filing of the written statement deserves to be condoned. Firstly it is a suit for partition concerning family members where every endeavor should be made for amicable settlement. Even otherwise, the mandate under Section 89 effort ought to be made to settle the matter. Secondly, the defendant had already filed the written statement in the suit in District Court. Hence it could not be the situation that the defendant was delaying the case, but on account of the attempts at settlement written statement was not filed""
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's written statement is ready. He further submits that the advance copy of the written statement shall be handed over to the counsel for the respondent today itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment in this matter.
5. The petition is allowed and impugned order dated 6thFebruary, 2018 is set aside. The Family Court shall take the written statement on record on the date fixed. Pending application is disposed of.
6. The record of the Family Court be returned back forthwith through a
3
special messenger.
Post Script
7. This Court is of the view that it is the duty of the Courts to search the truth and then do justice; this is the very object for which Courts are created. The Courts have to remove chaff from the grain to separate falsehood from truth. The matrimonial litigation begins with parties mounting claims on each other, which are often exaggerated and are magnified to such an extent that the truth and falsehood become so inextricably mixed up, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate them.
8. It becomes even more difficult to find the truth if the right to file the written statement or the right to lead evidence or right of cross-examination of any witness is closed in undue haste. Therefore, in matrimonial litigations, the Family Courts should take due care and caution in closing the valuable right to file the written statement or to lead the evidence or the right of cross-examination of any witness.
9. In Gajanan Laxman Bhalchandra v. Rangrao Amrutrao Deshpande, 1980 Mah LJ 821, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court observed as under:-
"The very weapon of cross-examination would stand scuttled. Cross-examination is not a mere continuation of examination-in-chief nor is it in all cases and circumstances supposed to fall within the routine strait-jacket formula as of examination in chief. Indeed, to the contrary. It is a very effective instrument and a powerful searchlight to draw out the truth and further the cause of justice. Its object inter alia is to impeach the very credit of the concerned witness and shake his entire testimony."
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. In Nandram Khemraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 Cri.L.J.
4
1270, the Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that weapon of cross- examination is a powerful weapon by which the defence can separate truth from falsehood piercing through the evidence given by the witness, who has been examined in examination-in-chief. The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced herein under:
"It is to be noted at this juncture that weapon of cross- examination is a powerful weapon by which the defence can separate truth from falsehood piercing through the evidence given by the witness, who has been examined in examination- in-chief. By the process of cross-examination the defence can test the evidence of a witness on anvil of truth. If an opportunity is not given to the accused to separate the truth from the evidence given by the witness in examination-in-chief, it would be as good as cutting his hands, legs and mouth and making him to stand meekly before the barrage of statements made by the witnesses in examination-in-chief against him for sending him to jail. Law does not allow such thing to happen." (Emphasis Supplied)
11. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Family Court along with the record.
12. Copy of this judgment Registrar General of this Court who shall send the same to the all Family Courts and other Courts dealing with matrimonial cases.
13. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master.
MAY 28, 2018 J.R.MIDHA, J.
dk
5
Alert