1 2025:CGHC:16569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 757 of 2022 Shani Garhewal S/o Soupat Lal, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Mohra, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, At Present Resident Of Atal Awas Bahtarai, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. . ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Pratima Garhewal W/o Shri Shani Garhewal, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Anchanl, D/o Shani Garhewal, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pratima Garhewal Wife Of Shani Garhewal, Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Village Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Veera Garhewal, S/o Shani Garhewal, Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pratima Garhewal Wife Of Shani Garhewal, Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Village Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vinay Garhewal, S/o Shani Garhewal, Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pratima Garhewal Wife Of Shani Garhewal, Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Village Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.11 19:17:54 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate along with Mr. Anmol Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. The challenge in the present petition is the order dated 30.05.2022, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, in MJC No. 86 of 2021, whereby the amount of Rs. 3400/- has been granted in favour of the present respondents as monthly maintenance amount which is payable from the date of order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CRPC was filed by the present respondents before the learned Family Court on 04.01.2021. He filed a reply of the application and vide order dated 26.03.2022, an amount of Rs. 3400/- was granted in favour of the present respondents as interim maintenance. During the proceeding of the said application of Section 125 of CRPC before the learned Family Court, on 27.05.2022, when the matter was fixed for recording evidence of the applicants' witnesses, the respondent (i.e. present petitioner) shown his inability to pay the amount of interim maintenance and on that day the present petitioner was precluded from taking part in the further proceeding of the case and stopped him from cross-examining the applicants' witnesses and after hearing 3 the parties on 30.05.2022, the impugned order of maintenance has been passed against him. He would further submit that earlier he was paying the interim maintenance regularly and only on 27.05.2022, he was unable to pay the amount of maintenance and for single default he was precluded from taking part from the proceeding of the case. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the learned Family Court for giving an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses of the applicants and to pass order afresh. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents opposes and has submitted that since the present petitioner/husband has not paid the amount of interim maintenance, the learned Family Court has proceeded against him and rightly passed the impugned order, which needs no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the order sheet dated 27.05.2022, it reflects that on that day the case was fixed for recording evidence of the applicants and their witnesses were also present, but it is the petitioner who sought time to cross-examine the witnesses and also shown his inability to pay the interim maintenance amount and on that day it is observed by the learned trial Court that “vukosnd u rks vUrfje Hkj.k iks"k.k jkf’k ns jgk gS vkSj u gh nsus dh dksbZ bPNk gS] blfy;s vukosnd dks bl izdj.k esa vkxs dk;Zokgh ls jksdk tkrk gS] vkosfndk lk{kh izfrek x<+soky vkSj Jhefr iq"ik ukxs’oj dk 'kiFk 4 i= igys ls is’k gS vukosnd dks izfrijh{k.k djus ds fy, volj nsus ls badkj fd;k tkrk gSA rdZ lquk x;kA” and thereafter the case was fixed for passing of the order on 30.05.2022 and ultimately on 30.05.2022, the order has been passed granting maintenance to the present respondents. 6. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paras- 24 to 30 as under:- "Cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice 24. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Walshampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623 held that the rules of natural justice require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. (See also Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882, Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719, Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar, AIR 1964 SC 708, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia, (2008) 3 SCC 279, Rachpal Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, (2009) 15 SCC 88, Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of W.B., (2009) 10 SCC 32 and State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772.) 5 25. In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. CCE, (2005) 10 SCC 634, this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the cross-examination of a witness. In the said case, the assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concerned, to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of accounts, and that excise duty had been paid. The Court held that such a request could not be turned down, as the denial of the right to cross- examine, would amount to a denial of the right to be heard i.e. audi alteram partem. 26. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia, (2008) 3 SCC 279, this Court considered a case under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and held as follows: (SCC p. 295, para 45) "45. If some facts are to be proved by the landlord, indisputably the occupant should get an opportunity to cross-examine. The witness who intends to prove the said fact has the right to cross-examine the witness. This may not be provided by under the statute, but it being a part of the principles of natural justice should be held to be indefeasible right." (emphasis added) 6 In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the right of cross- examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice. 27.In K.L. Tripathi v. SBI, (1984) 1 SCC 43, this Court held that, in order to sustain a complaint of the violation of the principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity of cross- examination, it must be established that some prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the procedure followed. A party, who does not want to controvert the veracity of the evidence on record, or of the testimony gathered behind his back, cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent grievance raised by him, stating that no opportunity of cross- examination was provided to him, specially when the same was not requested, and there was no dispute regarding the veracity of the statement. (See also Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850 and Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore, (1971) 1 SCC 1.) In Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, (2006) 3 SCC 74, this Court held: (SCC p. 80, para 9) “9. In order to establish that the cross- examination is necessary, the consumer has to make out a case for the same. Merely stating that the statement of an officer is being utilised for the purpose of adjudication would not be sufficient in all cases. If an application is made requesting for grant of an opportunity to cross- examine any official, the same has to be 7 considered by the adjudicating authority who shall have to either grant the request or pass a reasoned order if he chooses to reject the application. In that event an adjudication being concluded, it shall be certainly open to the consumer to establish before the appellate authority as to how he has been prejudiced by the refusal to grant an opportunity to cross- examine any official." 28. The meaning of providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause against an action proposed to be taken by the Government, is that the government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges, on the basis of which an inquiry is held. The government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so only when he is told what the charges against him are. He can, therefore, do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that, the government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against him. Unless the said statements are provided to the government servant, he will not be able to conduct an effective and useful cross-examination. 29. In Rajiv Arora v. Union of India, (2008) 15 SCC 306 this Court held: (SCC p. 310, paras 13-14) "13. ... Effective cross-examination could have been done as regards the correctness or 8 otherwise of the report, if the contents of them were proved. The principles analogous to the provisions of the Evidence Act as also the principles of natural justice demand that the maker of the report should be examined, save and except in cases where the facts are admitted or the witnesses are not available for cross- examination or similar situation. 14. The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded to consider the issue on a technical plea, namely, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by such non- examination. If the basic principles of law have not been complied with or there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction of judicial review." 30. The aforesaid discussion makes it evident that, not only should the opportunity of cross-examination be made available, but it should be one of effective cross-examination, so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice." 7. The right to cross-examination of the witnesses is a valuable right of the party, which cannot be taken away by saying that the petitioner is not paying the interim maintenance amount. There is other procedure 9 prescribed for recovery of the interim maintenance amount through the execution proceeding or the application under Section 125(3) of the CRPC. Depriving from cross-examining the witnesses appears to be erroneous, which does affect the valuable right of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that one opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses of the applicants (respondents herein) should be provided to the petitioner to do complete justice in the case. 8. In the result, the revision succeeds, the impugned order dated 30.05.2022, passed by learned Family Court, in MJC No. 86 of 2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to learned Family Court, Bilaspur for decision afresh after providing an opportunity to cross- examine the applicants’ witnesses. 9. The learned Family Court shall fix a date for cross-examining the applicants' witnesses. The present petitioner shall not take any adjournment when the applicants' witnesses appeared for their cross-examination. 10. The learned Family Court is also directed to conclude the proceeding and to pass a fresh order within 03 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. With this observation, the present criminal revision is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved