GURVINDER PAL SINGH Vs. RAVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging order dtd. 21/4/2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi ("Trial Court") vide which his application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for being granted opportunity to cross-examine the respondent, who is petitioner before the learned Trial Court has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner states that a decree for mutual consent divorce was obtained by him and respondent on 11/12/2001 in case HMA No. 910/2001 from the concerned Court at Delhi. It is stated that the divorce had been obtained after all matrimonial disputes pending between the parties had been amicably settled. It is now stated that the respondent due to her greed had filed a maintenance petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2003. It is stated that the petitioner has been cross-examined on four occasions by the respondent herein in the year 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2022. It is also stated that vide order dtd. 26/11/2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, the evidence of the petitioner had been closed. However, upon an application being filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. by the wife i.e. respondent herein, her application for cross-examination was allowed vide following order dtd. 1/2/2020:

(3.) It is, however, stated that as per order dtd. 1/2/2020, an application filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the respondent for her re-examination and cross-examination filed by the petitioner had been dismissed. It is stated that the present order is in clear contravention of order dtd. 1/2/2020 as both the parties were given opportunity to cross-examine each other, however, the wife was given more than four opportunities to cross-examine the petitioner/husband. The petitioner states that after submission of fresh income affidavit on 11/4/2017 by his wife/respondent, the petitioner herein has not been allowed to cross-examine her. It is stated that he was granted opportunity to cross-examine the respondent only on 20/4/2011, prior to filing of an affidavit in 2017. It is stated that it is essential to cross-examine the respondent/wife since there are numerous transactions and entries in her bank account statements which reveal that she has spent, withdrawn and deposited huge amount of money in her back account which reflects that she is capable to maintain herself.