HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 408 of 2025 Archana Barthwal ...Appellant Versus Subhash Pokhriyal ... Respondent Present:- Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vishesh Srivastava, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Instant appeal is preferred against order dated 01.11.2025, passed in Original Suit No.314 of 2022, Shri Subhash Pokhriyal Vs. Smt. Archana Barthwal, by the Court of Additional Principal Judge-1, Family Court, Dehradun (“the suit”). By the impugned order, an application for adjournment given by the appellant has been dismissed and her evidence was closed and the case was fixed for remaining evidence. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was filed by the respondent for divorce. It was fixed for the cross examination of the appellant on 01.11.2025. On that date, the appellant has all good intention to appear and get herself cross examined, but she could not avail leave from her present place of posting. Therefore, in the afternoon, she moved an adjournment application, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. He submits that the effect of the impugned order is that in effect, the 2 defence of the appellant may not be on record, which would be prejudicial to the defence of the appellant. He submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant may be given an opportunity to get herself cross examined and complete the evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has been repeatedly not appearing in the court. Multiple times costs were imposed on her, which she has not paid to the respondent. He submits that it is delaying tactics of the appellant. In a suit filed under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the appellant is regularly appearing. 5. A genuine adjournment is always accepted. Unnecessary adjournment are to be avoided, in all the cases, particularly, in matrimonial cases, where the life of the litigation affects the life of the litigant. 6. Perusal of the order sheets in the instant case reveals that the appellant has, in fact, been taking adjournments quite frequently. It is evident from the following dates:- (i) On 02.08.2025, an application for adjournment was given by the appellant for her cross examination. (ii) On 23.08.2025, against the appellant gave an adjournment application, which was allowed subject to Rs.600/- costs. (iii) On 15.09.2025, against the appellant remained absent and on her adjournment application, the date was adjourned. 3 (iv) On 27.10.2025, again the appellant was absent. She moved an adjournment application. The court passed a detailed order, allowed the adjournment application with Rs.600/- costs and observed, in case, the appellant does not appear on the next date, her evidence shall be closed and fixed 01.11.2025. (v) It is on 01.11.2025 when again the appellant was absent, therefore, her evidence to get herself cross examined was closed. 7. Be it as it may, it is a matrimonial case. We are of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. The appeal is allowed. 9. The impugned order is set aside. 10. The appellant may be permitted to get herself cross examined of course subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- 11. The parties shall appear before the court below on 06.12.2025. On which date, the appellant shall be cross examined and she shall adduce other evidence on that date or any other date, as may be directed by the court below. But, before her cross examination, the appellant shall pay the costs of Rs.10,000/- and other remaining costs to the respondent. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 19.11.2025 Jitendra