1 2025:CGHC:44438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 491 of 2023 1 - Deepmala Tiwari W/o Saurabh Pandey Aged About 36 Years D/o Vinod Tiwari, R/o Badi Khirhani, Acharya Vinoba Bhave Ward No. 15, Katni, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Saurabh Pandey S/o Dr. Ramkrishna Pandey Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Karma Chowk, Ganpati Nagar, New Changorabhata, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Waquar Naiyar, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “1. To quash/set aside order dated 29/03/2023 passed by learned 1st additional Principal Judge, Family court Raipur in Case пo. 296/2019 party namely Saurabh Pandey Vs Deepmala Tiwari (Annexure P/6) 2. That Hon'ble court may further be pleased to condone non-appearance of petitioner/ wife / non- NIRMALA RAO 2 applicant and another opportunity to cross-examine applicant/respondent/husband be given to her in the interest of Justice 3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a suit has been filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. He would contend that the case is pending for consideration before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. He would contend that the petitioner has filed her written statement and the matter was fixed for cross- examination of the respondent/ husband on 29.3.2023. However, as the petitioner could not appear on the said date, her right to cross-examine the respondent’s witnesses was closed. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. Heard. 4. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Deepak Vs. Ramesh Sethi 1 has held as under: - “13. The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. No doubt, where a party is unconscionably indolent , the Court may put its foot down and close the right of the party to lead evidence; else, as adversarial litigations are meant to be tried after allowing the parties to an adequate opportunity to place their respective stands on record, the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like.” 1. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381 3 5. It is a well-settled principle of law that the Court should not adopt a hyper-technical approach in matters relating to the grant of an opportunity to lead evidence. Therefore, in opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court ought to have afforded one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order dated 29.03.2023 passed in Case No. 296/2019 is hereby quashed. The learned Family Court shall afford one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent, if she so wishes. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 8. The learned trial Court is directed to provide only one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent and in the event the petitioner fails to lead evidence, her right to do so shall stand closed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi