The High Court dismissed the appeal against the Family Court's order refusing to recall a witness for cross-examination. The Court held that the witness had already been cross-examined at length and interference would amount to micro-managing the lower court's proceedings. The appeal was also noted to be delayed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~37
MOHD AAMIR FARIDI .....Appellant
Through: Appellant in person. versus SABA ANJUM .....Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
O R D E R % 20.08.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/09/2024 at 12:26:30
about what occurred on that date.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
AUGUST 20, 2024 /rt
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 265/2024
Page 2 of 2
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/09/2024 at 12:26:30
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in disallowing the recall of a witness for cross-examination?
MOHD AAMIR FARIDI
SABA ANJUM
Rajiv Shakdher
Amit Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 against a decree or order of a Family Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
