SAPNA JULEE Vs. SUMIT PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the Family Court, allowing an application filed by the respondent/husband for appointment of a Local Commissioner to record the evidence of the parties. Under the impugned order, Shri S.C. Malik (Retired ADJ) has been appointed as a Local Commissioner to record the evidence of the parties for which his fee and the out of pocket expenses have been directed to be paid by the respondent/husband. The Local Commissioner has been directed to record the evidence on a day-to-day basis, within the court premises commencing from 08.08.2017 at 12 noon. Further, it has been directed that in case an adjournment is given in an extreme circumstance, after the conclusion of the cross-examination of the respondent, then the fee for the said date would be borne by the appellant.

(2.) Mr. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/wife states that the aforesaid order is causing great hardship to the appellant and her counsel as the learned Local Commissioner has been recording the evidence on a day-to-day basis effective from 08.08.2017, from 12 PM to beyond 6 PM, thus causing great inconvenience to the counsels, who have other cases to attend to, but are having to leave all work to remain present for the conclusion of the cross-examination of the respondent (PW-1). We are informed that the Local Commissioner has recorded the evidence for three running dates and the matter is listed before him today at 12 Noon, for further cross-examination of the respondent.

(3.) Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/husband contends that the appellant is deliberately dragging her feet and all kinds of irrelevant questions are being put to the respondent during his cross-examination only to delay the proceedings. He particularly refers to the cross-examination of the respondent (PW-1), as recorded on 10.08.2017, where three pages relate only to one photograph of the marriage ceremony of the parties. He states that 117 photographs of the marriage ceremonies of the parties have been filed by the respondent and having regard to the fact that the marriage itself is not in dispute, the said questions are solely to delay conclusion of the evidence. He further states that the respondent is working in Nairobi and has taken leave for three days to come to Delhi for his cross-examination and if the same is conducted at this pace, it will never conclude. We are informed that as against the respondent's list of witnesses, wherein 3 witnesses have been cited, on her part, the appellant has cited 66 witnesses in her list of witnesses, which clearly reflects an attempt to somehow drag the proceedings before the learned Family Court.