MR PRAMOD KUMAR vs MRS. ARCHANA
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 16.01.2024
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 385/2023
MR PRAMOD KUMAR ….. Appellant
Through: Mohd. Azeem, Advocate.
versus
MRS. ARCHANA ….. Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
CM APPL. 66741/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal]
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
1.1 According to the appellant, there is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal.
2. Since we intend to dispose of the appeal, the delay is condoned.
3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 385/2023 and CM APPL. 66740/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]
4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the learned Family Court-01, Shahdara, Karkardoom Courts, Delhi.
5. Counsel for the appellant/husband says that the impugned order, if sustained, would add to the delay. This, in fact, is the substance of the appellants/husbands grievance before us.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Family Court, after considering the application moved on behalf of the respondent/wife, has recalled the orders dated 31.01.2023 and 02.06.2023.
7. A perusal of the record shows that on 31.01.2023, the Family Court had closed the evidence of the appellant/husband (PW-1), although a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the counsel for the respondent/wife.
8. A perusal of the order-sheet dated 31.01.2023 shows that though the respondent/wife was present in person, the request for accommodation tendered due to the unavailability of her counsel was declined. It is because of this that the PE was closed, as the respondents/wifes counsel was not present to cross-examine the appellant/husband (PW-1).
9. The record discloses that thereafter, the matter was placed before the Family Court on 03.05.2023, when once again the respondent/wife was present in person. However, once again, a request for accommodation was made on behalf of the counsel for the respondent/wife, on the grounds that he was unwell.
10. The Family Court, on that date, granted an adjournment and directed that the matter would be listed on 02.06.2023 for the respondents/wifes evidence.
11. On 02.06.2023, even though the respondent/wife and her counsel were present, it appears that the respondent/wifes counsel conveyed to the Court that he was under the impression that he had to cross-examine the appellant/husband (PW-1). This aspect is recorded in the order dated 02.06.2023. It is against this backdrop that the Family Court fixed the matter on 21.08.2023 for final arguments.
12. Evidently on 21.08.2023, final arguments were heard and the matter was directed to be listed for pronouncing the judgment on 11.09.2023. As noticed hereinabove, the impugned order was passed on 11.09.2023 when Family Court took up the application preferred on behalf of the respondent/wife for recalling orders dated 31.01.2023 and 02.06.2023.
13. Having regard to the fact that the respondents/wifes counsel was unwell, the Family Court proceeded to recall the orders and placed the matter for cross-examination of the appellant/husband (PW-1) on 22.01.2024.
14. Counsel for the appellant/husband says that respondent/wife has proceeded in the manner as recorded hereinabove only to delay the proceedings. That said, it is not in dispute that the respondent/wife has been represented by a legal aid counsel.
15. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the counsel was not available on 31.01.2023 and 02.06.2023 because of his ill health. The handicap that the litigant ordinarily faces when represented by legal aid counsel is evident in this case. Although on both dates i.e., 31.01.2023 and 02.06.2023, the respondent was diligently present in-person, her counsel was not available.
16. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal, with the following directions:
(i) The Family Court will take up the matter on 22.01.2024 for cross-examination of the appellant/husband (PW-1).
(ii) Since there is no other witness that the appellant/husband wishes to present in support of his petition, if time permits, the Family Court will examine the respondents/wifes witness(es). However, if for any reason, the examination of the respondents/wifes witness(es) does not take place on 22.01.2024, the Family Court will ensure that the recordal of evidence takes place within the next four (04) weeks.
(iii) Once the entire evidence is recorded, the Family Court will fix a date for final arguments, albeit in close proximity, though not later than four (04) weeks from the date when the evidence is recorded.
(iv) The Family Court will render a judgment in the matter within eight (08) weeks of arguments being heard in the matter.
17. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.
18. Registry will dispatch a copy of the order passed today to the concerned court and also to the concerned Legal Services Authority so that the counsel who represents the respondent/wife is made aware of the order passed today.
18.1 In any event, counsel for the appellant/husband will also ensure that the order passed today is served on the counsel for the respondent/wife.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
JANUARY 16, 2024 / tr
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 385/2023 Page 1 of 4