Dismissed¶26

Tarun Tandon v. Vandana Tandon

Delhi HC25 Jul 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/265/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tarun Tandon v. Vandana Tandon | Delhi HC | MAT.APP.(F.C.) 265/2025 & CM APPL. 43679/2025 | 25.07.2025 | appeal under Section 19, Family Courts Act 1984, dismissed | Family Court Saket order 16.05.2025 upheld | cross-examination reopened as one-time indulgence subject to Rs. 5,000/- costs after 24.04.2024 closure | procedural order vs review; persona designata; Section 151 CPC 1908 inherent powers | relied on: State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770; Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 1909 | prior challenge CM(M) 3525/2024 dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order dated 16.05.2025 upheld; the Respondent's one-time opportunity to cross-examine the Appellant subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- stands. ¶26

Tarun Tandon Vs Vandana Tandon — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Order dated 16.05.2025 upheld; the Respondent's one-time opportunity to cross-examine the Appellant subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- stands.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court possessed the jurisdiction/inherent power to grant the Respondent a fresh (last) opportunity to cross-examine the Appellant by reconsidering its earlier procedural order of 24.04.2024 that had closed her cross-examination right — i.e., whether doing so amounted to an impermissible review of its own order, given that her challenge in CM(M) 3525/2024 had been dismissed as withdrawn.

¶13

Court's answer

The order of 24.04.2024 closing the Respondent's cross-examination right was passed solely for non-compliance with earlier cost orders; it was a procedural order regulating the conduct of trial that decided no substantive rights of the parties, and was therefore open to reconsideration by the Family Court in appropriate circumstances.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Family Court is not a persona designata but a regular Civil Court constituted under the Act, and therefore possesses inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to regulate its procedure and prevent miscarriage of justice.

¶16

Key takeaways

Modifying a procedural direction issued during trial does not amount to review of a final adjudication; consistent with the Supreme Court position relied upon (Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar), interim orders that do not decide substantive rights can be recalled or modified without invoking review jurisdiction.ratio¶16
Courts possess inherent power to correct errors or recall orders to prevent miscarriage of justice even in the absence of an express statutory provision (per Shivdeo Singh relied upon); accordingly, the Family Court was well within its jurisdiction in recalling the procedural order that could otherwise have led to injustice.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.), MAT.APP.(F.C.) 265/2025, decided 25.07.2025: Tarun Tandon's appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Family Court, Saket (South-East District) Order dated 16.05.2025 — by which Vandana Tandon was granted one last opportunity to cross-examine him (PW-1) subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/-, after her cross-examination right had been closed on 24.04.2024 for non-payment of costs and her challenge in CM(M) 3525/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn — is dismissed. Held: the 24.04.2024 closure was a purely procedural order deciding no substantive rights and open to reconsideration; the Family Court, being a regular Civil Court and not a persona designata, possesses inherent powers under Section 151, CPC 1908, so altering a trial-stage procedural direction is not review of a final adjudication; courts may recall orders to prevent miscarriage of justice even absent express statutory provision (relying on State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770, and Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909); the Act's Objects and Reasons endorse relaxing procedural lapses not affecting jurisdiction or merit; denial would have gravely prejudiced the Respondent while the indulgence prejudiced nobody. No infirmity found; Impugned Order upheld; appeal and pending applications dismissed.

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 265/2025 & CM APPL. 43679/2025

¶4

TARUN TANDON .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rudra Pratap, Mr. Tushar Randhawa, Mr. Rahul Sharma and Ms. Nandini Singh Randhawa, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

VANDANA TANDON .....Respondent Through:

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶9

O R D E R % 25.07.2025

¶10

By way of the present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, [“hereinafter referred to as the Act”] the Appellant assails the correctness of the Order dated 16.05.2025 [“hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South-East District, Saket, whereby the Respondent was granted one last opportunity to cross-examine the Appellant [PW-1 therein], subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the right of the Respondent to cross-examine the Appellant was closed on 24.04.2024, due to non-payment of previously imposed costs, and that the Respondent's challenge to the said order before this Court in CM(M) 3525/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty only to move an

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 31/07/2025 at 12:41:50

¶13

appropriate application before the learned Trial Court seeking waiver or substantial reduction of the costs. He further submits that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a plea and had no power to review its own Order.

¶14

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Appellant and has perused the impugned order as well as the proceedings on record. It is noted that the order dated 24.04.2024, whereby the right of the Respondent to cross-examine the Appellant was closed, was passed solely on account of noncompliance with earlier cost orders. It was thus a procedural order regulating the conduct of trial, and not one that decided any substantive rights of the parties. As such, it was open to the Family Court to reconsider the same in appropriate circumstances.

¶15

In the present case, the Family Court, while passing the Impugned Order, recorded its satisfaction that denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the Appellant would cause grave prejudice to the Respondent. The Court was conscious that the earlier defaults were not condoned lightly, and it imposed a further cost of ₹5,000/- while allowing only a limited indulgence for the purpose of cross-examination.

¶16

It is well-settled that the Family Court is not a persona designata but a regular Civil Court constituted under the Act. It therefore possesses inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to regulate its procedure and prevent miscarriage of justice. The Impugned Order merely modifies a procedural direction issued during the trial and does not amount to review of a final adjudication. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar , (2011) 14 SCC 770, has held

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 31/07/2025 at 12:41:50

¶19

that interim orders passed during proceedings which do not decide substantive rights can be recalled or modified without invoking review jurisdiction.

¶20

Further, in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab , AIR 1963 SC 1909, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that High Courts and Civil Courts possess inherent powers to correct errors or recall orders to prevent miscarriage of justice, even in the absence of an express statutory provision. Thus, the Family Court was well within its jurisdiction in recalling a procedural order that could have otherwise led to injustice.

¶21

The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Act further reinforces the legislative intent to adopt a non-technical, participatory and flexible adjudicatory process in family law matters. Procedural lapses that do not affect jurisdiction or merit can be relaxed to advance the cause of justice.

¶22

In the present case, the learned Family Court, having considered the plea of the Respondent and her explanation, came to the conscious conclusion that denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the Appellant would result in grave prejudice to her, particularly in a matrimonial dispute involving sensitive personal issues. The opportunity was allowed as a one-time indulgence, subject to payment of further cost, and no prejudice was caused to the Appellant in this process. On the contrary, denial of such opportunity may have defeated the very object of a just and effective resolution under the Act. The impugned order is, therefore, a measured exercise of judicial discretion aimed at advancing the cause of justice.

¶23

Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the Impugned Order and the same is upheld.

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 31/07/2025 at 12:41:50

¶26

The present Appeal, along with all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

¶27

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶28

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J

¶29

JULY 25, 2025/nd/va

¶30

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 31/07/2025 at 12:41:50

Tarun Tandon v. Vandana Tandon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Tandon v. Vandana Tandon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Chaudhary Vs Meenakshi

Pooja Tewari Vs Umang Tewari & Anr.

Harpreet Singh Vs Amanpreet Kaur

Tarun Upadhyay Vs Rashi Upadhyay

Pankaj Jain Vs Parul Jain

Wg. Cdr. Manish Mahajan Vs Parul Mahajan

Sapna Katiyar Vs Satyajit Anand

Souvik Banerjee Vs Sangeeta Banerjee

Subhash Chand Vs M/S Delhi Commercial Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Madhu Bala Vs Shri Nafay Singh

Brig Manendra Janak Kumar Retd & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Gwalior Alcobrew Pvt. Ltd.