HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No.75 of 2026 Sudha Devi alias Lali ….....Appellant Versus Anil Kumar ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Coram : Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. This Appeal from Order has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1984”), by the appellant for setting aside the impugned judgment/order dated 07.03.2026, passed by the learned IInd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, Haridwar, in Case No. 352 of 2023, Anil Kumar Vs. Smt. Sudha @ Lali, under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. As per the Office report, the appeal is well within time. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is being decided at the admission stage itself. 4. The wife-appellant has filed this Appeal from Order challenging the order dated 07.03.2026, whereby her application seeking recall of the order dated 03.04.2025 was rejected. 5. Vide order dated 03.04.2025, appellant’s opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff and plaintiff’s 2 witnesses was closed due to her non-appearance and absence of her counsel on the said date. 6. The appellant moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 03.04.2025. Her application has been rejected by the impugned order, holding that the appellant is adopting dilatory tactics and that her non-appearance on 03.04.2025 was intentional. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that 03.04.2025 was the first date when the plaintiff’s witnesses were present and were to be examined by the appellant; however, due to illness appellant could not appear before the Family Court, Roorkee, Haridwar. He further submits that appellant had informed her Lawyer about illness but the Lawyer also did not appear before learned court on the date fixed. 8. He further submits that the appellant is residing with her parents at Saharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh and she is getting only ₹500/- as maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and another sum of ₹3,000/- pursuant to order in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023). 9. He further submits that the appellant’s absence on the date fixed was not intentional, as inferred by the Family Court, Roorkee, Haridwar, and it was for reasons beyond her control that she could not appear on the said date. 10. He further submits that if opportunity to cross- examine plaintiff and his witnesses is not granted to the appellant, it will result in miscarriage of justice. 3 11. Learned counsel for the respondent however submits that appellant deliberately did not appear on the date fixed in the matter. 12. Having regard to the facts of the case and also in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that appellant deserves one more opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff and plaintiff’s witnesses. 13. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2026, and permit the appellant to cross-examine the plaintiff and plaintiff witnesses, subject to cost of ₹2,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff (respondent herein) within 15 days. 14. The appellant as well as the plaintiff shall appear before the court concerned on 02.04.2026, on which date the plaintiff’s witnesses shall also remain present, and the appellant shall cross-examine the plaintiff and other witnesses on the said date. 15. In case of default on the part of the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses, if present, on the said date, she shall not be entitled to any further opportunity of cross examination. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.03.2026 20.03.2026 SK