Dismissed¶8

Manvi Hora v. Abhinav Batra

Delhi HC3 Dec 2025CM(M)/2326/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC, CM(M) 2326/2025 (Manvi Hora v Abhinav Batra), 03.12.2025, Manoj Jain (oral): petition dismissed; challenge to Family Court order 26.09.2025 closing petitioner's right to further cross-examine PW1 (husband) rejected. Themes: cross-examination cannot continue endlessly/in perpetuity; supervisory court not expected to monitor ongoing trial; interference only on perversity; Local Commissioner-recorded evidence; unfulfilled assurance of co-operation; prior order 04.08.2025 in CM(M) 1433/2025; subsequent Family Court order 28.11.2025 closed petitioner's right to lead evidence, judicial remedy left open.

What did the court decide?

The learned Family Court seems justified in observing that cross-examination cannot go on in perpetuity/endlessly. ¶7

Manvi Hora Vs Abhinav Batra — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the learned Family Court's order dated 26.09.2025 closing the petitioner's right to further cross-examine her husband (PW1) in the divorce petition.

¶4

Court's answer

The learned Family Court seems justified in observing that cross-examination cannot go on in perpetuity/endlessly.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

No litigant can expect a Supervisory Court to monitor and supervise an ongoing trial; interference is permissible only where there is some perversity.

¶7

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner's conduct emerged contrary to her earlier assurance of requisite assistance and co-operation, this Court found no merit in the present petition and dismissed it.ratio¶8
If the petitioner wishes to assail the subsequent Family Court order dated 28.11.2025 (closing her right to lead evidence), of which her counsel professed unawareness, it will be open to her to take appropriate judicial remedy in accordance with law.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain, oral judgment, 03.12.2025) dismisses CM(M) 2326/2025 filed by Manvi Hora against the learned Family Court's order dated 26.09.2025 closing her right to further cross-examine her husband Abhinav Batra (PW1) in his divorce petition. Background: an earlier High Court order dated 04.08.2025 in CM(M) 1433/2025, disposing of her plea that evidence be recorded before the Family Court rather than the Local Commissioner, had granted her one cross-examination opportunity before the Local Commissioner on her assurance of requisite assistance and co-operation; cross-examination occurred on 22.09.2025 and 24.09.2025, was not concluded, and the Local Commissioner sent the file back to the Family Court for directions. Holding: cross-examination cannot go on in perpetuity; a litigant cannot expect a Supervisory Court to monitor and supervise an ongoing trial; interference is permissible only where there is some perversity; and as the petitioner's conduct proved contrary to her assurance, the petition was dismissed and pending CM APPL. 75356/2025 and CM APPL. 75357/2025 were disposed of in the same terms. Separately, respondent's counsel disclosed that the petitioner, not appearing before the Local Commissioner when her turn came to lead evidence, had her right to lead evidence closed by a subsequent Family Court order dated 28.11.2025 — an order petitioner's Senior Counsel claimed not to know of — and the Court left her free to take appropriate judicial remedy against it in accordance with law.

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 3^rd December , 2025

¶4

CM(M) 2326/2025, CM APPL. 75356/2025 & CM APPL. 75357/2025

¶5

MANVI HORA .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Uttam Datt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Rohtagi, Ms. Sonakshi Singh, Ms. Aastha Vashist, Mr. Pankaj Rohilla and Mr. Neeraj Singh, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

ABHINAV BATRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Mr. Sanchit Saini, Ms. Avni Soni, Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Ms. Sakshi Jain, Ms. Sneha Mathew and Ms. A. Sharma, Advocates

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶11

Petitioner is defending a divorce petition filed by her husband. Her husband (respondent herein) entered into witness box and was cross-examined further in terms of the direction given, earlier, by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2025 passed in CM(M) 1433/2025.

¶12

It will be worthwhile to mention that earlier also, the petitioner had approached this Court with prayer that recording of evidence be done before the learned Family Court, instead of it being before Local Commissioner. However, this Court did not find any substance in such prayer and while disposing of the earlier petition on 04.08.2025, on the basis of assurance

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

CM(M) 2326/2025

¶15

¶16

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 4.12.2025 16:40:57

¶17

given by the petitioner herein that she would provide requisite assistance and co-operation to the learned Local Commissioner, one opportunity was granted to her to cross-examine her husband.

¶18

Such cross-examination took place on 22.09.2025 and thereafter on 24.09.2025.

¶19

Since cross-examination was not concluded, learned Local Commissioner sent the file to the Family Court for necessary directions. Learned Family Court, vide order dated 26.09.2025, which is impugned herein, has closed her right to further cross-examine her husband. It observed that respondent had already availed the granted opportunity and she could not be permitted to cross-examine PW1 endlessly.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent submits that there is huge development in the interregnum as thereafter the petitioner herein did not appear before learned Local Commissioner when it was her turn to lead evidence and considering her such non-appearance, learned Family Court has, even, closed her right to lead evidence on 28.11.2025. Copy of such order was also shown.

¶21

When asked, Mr. Uttam Datt, learned Senior Counsel submitted that he is not aware about any such order.

¶22

Be that as it may, fact remains that learned Family Court seems justified in observing that cross-examination cannot go in perpetuity. Moreover, any litigant cannot expect a Supervisory Court to monitor and supervise any such ongoing trial. Interference is permissible only where there is some perversity.

¶23

As noted, earlier also, the indulgence had given to the petitioner herein on the basis of her assurance that there would be requisite cooperation from

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

CM(M) 2326/2025

¶26

¶27

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 4.12.2025 16:40:57

¶28

her side. The position, which, however, emerges, is contrary to what she had assured. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. Same is accordingly dismissed. 9. Needless to say, in case petitioner wants to assail subsequent order dated 28.11.2025, of which the learned Senior Counsel and other counsel representing her are, somehow, not aware, it will be open to her to take appropriate judicial remedy, in accordance with law.

¶29

Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶30

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶31

DECEMBER 3, 2025 /dr/pb

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed CM(M) 2326/2025 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 4.12.2025 16:40:57

¶34

Manvi Hora v. Abhinav Batra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manvi Hora v. Abhinav Batra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Aggarwal Vs Jaipal Singh

Sh. Pradeep & Ors. Vs Sh. Ravinder Dagar & Anr.

M/S Alpro Industires and Ors. Vs Ms/ Indo Alusys Industries Ltd.

Syed Nadeem Abbas @ Nadeem Zaidi Vs Ramesh Kumar & Anr.

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S G S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Soni Dave

Vakeel Ahmed Vs Kamlesh Gupta

Dr Tariq Jalaly Vs Dr Tabbassum Bano

Prahalad & Ors. Vs Union of India

Soumya Bhattacharya Vs Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors.

Hitender Shokeen Vs Rajan Kumar Shokeen & Ors.

N C Goel Vs Ms R Alice Vaz and Ors.

Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway Vs Deepak Mehra

Manvi Hora Vs Abhinav Batra