Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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