Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

High Court Condemns Extended Cross-Examination as Harassment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, April 28, 2023: In a groundbreaking ruling, the High Court of Delhi strongly criticized the prolonged cross-examination in a matrimonial dispute and condemned its use as a tool for harassment. The observation was made by Justice Prathiba M. Singh while delivering a judgment in the case between Naveen Kumar Dalal (the petitioner) and Neelam Kadyan (the respondent). The court expressed its disapproval of the husband's repeated opportunities to cross-examine his wife, which had resulted in an unreasonably long process.

The court emphasized that cross-examination, which is intended to provide an opportunity for a party to challenge the evidence presented by a witness, should be conducted within a reasonable time frame. However, in the present case, the husband had been granted multiple opportunities to cross-examine his wife, leading to a significant delay in the proceedings. The court viewed this extended cross-examination as an act of harassment and decided not to grant the husband any further opportunities to question his wife.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh's strong condemnation of prolonged cross-examination as a tool for harassment underscores the court's commitment to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of matrimonial disputes. This landmark judgment serves as a reminder that legal proceedings should be conducted efficiently, protecting the rights of both parties involved. The court's decision aims to prevent the unnecessary prolongation of litigation and promote a more just and effective judicial system.

          NAVEEN KUMAR DALAL vs NEELAM KADYAN  

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Delhi-28-April-2023-NAVEEN-vs-NEELAM.pdf"]

Latest Legal News