Allowed

Davinder Singh Randhawa v. Sumeet Kaur Randhawa

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2012CR/2199/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial dispute, the High Court granted the petitioner one more opportunity to cross-examine the respondent-wife, permitting him to use the record from the Guardian Judge but conditioning this on his payment of Rs. 25,000 cost to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

One opportunity granted for cross-examination, including use of Guardian Judge record, subject to payment of Rs. 25,000 cost.

Davinder Singh Randhawa Vs Sumeet Kaur… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2199 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 2199 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2012

¶4

Dr. Davinder Singh Randhawa

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

v. Major (Dr.) Sumeet Kaur Randhawa

¶7

.. Respondent-caveator

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sidharth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

The present petition arises out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties. Both are qualified doctors. The husband has approached this court impugning the orders dated 2.3.2012 and 12.3.2012, whereby the petitioner has not been permitted to put the documents to the respondent during cross-examination of the respondent-wife, who is the petitioner before the court below and the same was treated as closed.

¶13

As the respondent-wife has already filed a caveat, hence both the parties were heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for effective cross-examination of the respondent, the case file of a petition filed by the respondent before the Guardian Judge, Amritsar was required. The same was even directed to be summoned but was not received. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on that account. He further submitted that for delay in cross-examination of the respondent-wife, the petitioner is not

¶15

Civil Revision No. 2199 of 2012 [2]

¶16

solely to be blamed as on some occasions, even she did not appear, whereas on 2-3 occasions, the case had to be adjourned as the Fast Track Courts were abolished in the State. Still the submission is that the petitioner had been doing all what is required to save the marriage. In fact, the parties lived together till 18.5.2008 and all of a sudden thereafter the respondent filed the divorce petition on 18.10.2008 alleged cruelty and other things against the petitioner. The next date of hearing is stated to be 30.5.2012.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the primary object of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings. Though the respondent had been posted at different places away from Amritsar, but she had been visiting the court almost regularly to attend the hearings except on the dates when she could not get leave. The affidavit in examination-in-chief of the respondent was filed on 20.3.2009 and thereafter the case is pending only for her cross-examination. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not deserve any further opportunity for her cross-examination.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper

¶19

book.

¶20

No doubt, there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner in cross-examining the respondent, but still the fact is that both are well educated and it is a matrimonial dispute. Entire blame for delay in crossexamination of the respondent cannot be put on the petitioner, as sometimes the case was adjourned on account of the fact that the respondent did not appear for her cross-examination, whereas on some occasions, it was adjourned on account of non-extension of Fast Track Courts. It is also a fact that the petitioner had summoned the file of the case filed before the Guardian Judge. The court had even directed summoning thereof but still the same had not been received. The submission was that it is on that account that the respondent could not be effectively cross-examined.

¶21

Considering the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the parties does not linger on, on account of one or other technical objections by the parties and the evidence whatever is sought to be led comes on record, least the applications are filed at subsequent stages for the purpose, I

¶22

Civil Revision No. 2199 of 2012 [3]

¶23

deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to crossexamine the respondent either on the next date of hearing and in case the respondent is not able to get leave for appearance in court on that date of hearing, on a date subsequent thereof as fixed by the court. For the purpose of cross-examination, the petitioner shall be at liberty to put to the respondent the record of the case filed before the Guardian Judge. However, the same shall be subject to payment of ` 25,000/- as cost to the respondent, which shall be paid to her on the next date of hearing before the court below by way of demand draft.

¶24

The petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶26

18.5.2012 mk

Davinder Singh Randhawa v. Sumeet Kaur Randhawa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davinder Singh Randhawa v. Sumeet Kaur Randhawa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Rana and Anr. Vs Pawan Chhabra and Anr.

Avinash Kumar Vs Alka Rani

Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs Prem Chand & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nasib Singh and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nasib Singh and Ors.

Baleshwar Vs Rajinder Singh and Anr.