NABHA ACHUTH PAI Vs. RAJGOPAL GOPALKRISHNA SHENOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the petitioner-wife who is facing marriage dissolution proceedings in M.C.No.489/2019 is against denial of right of cross- examination qua the respondent-husband as PW-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that right of cross-examination has been treated as a most valuable right since centuries in any civilized jurisdiction and therefore it cannot be cut short on some procedural grounds, more particularly in matrimonial cases.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent-husband takes the Court through the checkered history of the case too many adjournments having been sought for from the side of petitioner. He vehemently opposes indulgence of the court when the matter at the hands of the court below is posted for judgment and that was eventually interdicted by this court by an interim order.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant conditional indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the right of cross-examination has been treated as a most valuable tool to elicit the truth from the witnesses. This is how 'Wigmore on Evidence' says - Heaves would not have fallen down had one more opportunity been given to the petitioner of course subject to payment of some costs to set off the inconvenience that would be otherwise caused to the respondent-husband. This having not been done there is error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court for setting the injustice at naught.