Petitioner challenged a Family Court order permitting respondents, his wife and minor child seeking maintenance, to re-examine him on the ground of change of counsel. The High Court held this was not a valid ground under Section 311 CrPC but allowed one re-examination in the interest of justice and disposed of the petition.
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.
$~67
versus
ARUSHI SHARMA AND ANR .....Respondents Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 09.07.2025
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 14/07/2025 at 13:00:45
counsel engaged by a party is of a different opinion or have a different strategy cannot be a ground for allowing an application under Section 311 of the CrPC.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 9, 2025 “SK”
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 14/07/2025 at 13:00:45
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a change of counsel is a valid ground to allow re-examination of a witness under Section 311 CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitender Sharma
Arushi Sharma
Anr
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
