Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

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"]

Similar News