Deepshikha Sharma @ Deep Shikha Bhardwaj Vs Susheel Sharma

11.02.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad (Annexure P-3) and orders dated 14.05.2025 and 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad vide which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent and she is not keeping good health. It is further submitted that the evidence of the petitioner had been closed by order although on 17.01.2025 the petitioner herself had appeared as RW-1 and her examination-in-chief was not completed as she could not present herself thereafter on account of her illness. It is prayed that the petitioner be permitted to present herself before the trial Court so that her cross-examination could be completed and in case the same is not done, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and the divorce petition filed by the husband of the petitioner would go uncontested. It is further stated that although the petitioner does not have sufficient means but for the inconvenience caused to the respondent, the petitioner is ready to pay reasonable costs. It is submitted that the case is fixed for today for final arguments but no argument has taken place as of yet and a request has been made by the petitioner for keeping the matter pending.

¶25

Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) as well as the orders dated 14.05.2025 and

¶26

NARESH KUMAR 2025.07.02 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement

¶27

CM-12226-CII-2025 in/and -3CR-3329-2025 (O&M)

¶28

25.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) are modified to the following limited extent:-

¶29

(i) The trial Court would give a date to the petitioner to present herself for completion of her cross-examination. The petitioner would appear on the said date and due opportunities would be granted to the counsel for the respondent herein to cross-examine the present petitioner who would appear as RW-1. In case the petitioner does not present herself on the date the trial Court directs her to present herself, no further opportunities would be granted to the petitioner and the present revision petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

¶30

(ii) The petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs, within a period of one week from today before the trial Court and the said amount would be released to the respondent herein (husband). In case the said amount is not deposited by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the present revision petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

¶31

(iii) The petitioner would not be permitted to lead any further oral evidence other than the evidence of the petitioner herself.

¶32

1. It would be relevant to mention that notice of motion has not

¶33

been issued to the respondent as issuance of any notice would further delay the proceedings in the suit and would also entail expenses for the

¶34

NARESH KUMAR 2025.07.02 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement

¶35

CM-12226-CII-2025 in/and -4CR-3329-2025 (O&M)

¶36

respondent in order to defend the present petition. However, it would be open to the respondent to move an application for recalling the present order in case, any statement made before this Court is found to be false/incorrect.

¶37

July 02, 2025 naresh.k

¶38

( VIKAS BAHL ) JUDGE

¶39

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶40

NARESH KUMAR 2025.07.02 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement

Deepshikha Sharma @ Deep Shikha Bhardwaj v. Susheel Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepshikha Sharma @ Deep Shikha Bhardwaj v. Susheel Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanta Vs Ajay Kumar and Ors.

Asmuddin Ansari Vs Shamat Ali

Block Development and Panchayat Officer Faridkot Vs Kawaljeet Kaur Gill and Others

Makrand Singh Vs Anshul Gupta

Mohan Singh Vs Anurag Rastogi and Another

Lachhman Singh Vs Varun Roojam IAS and Other