When principles of natural justice is not violated in matrimonial proceeding
closure of his right to cross-examine the respondent. Counsel for the
petitioner says that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment
by violating the principle of natural justice, as his client was not
afforded a chance to rebut the facts and documents tendered by the
respondent. Therefore, the present case is not a case where the
opportunity was not granted. Rather it was granted but the same is
not availed b the petitioner.
24. It is evident that the Sub-section (2) of Section 28 was inserted
for such types of cases, i.e. where the non-applicant is ex parte or the
right to cross-examination of either party is closed despite of
opportunity is granted, the trial court under those circumstances shall
not be prevented from laying down its own procedure for disposal of
an application under Section 12 or Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of
the Act. Under those circumstances, if the trial court is able to find
prima-facie material by way of cogent and unimpeachable evidence,
the Court may lay down its own procedure by fixing the amount under
Section 28(2) of the Act which has been rightly applied in the present
case. After having gone through the findings arrived at by the trial
court as well as by the Appellate Court, as there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgment, in fact, the Appellate Court has passed the
impugned judgment after considering the cogent evidence available
on record, rather the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed
by reducing the amount from Rs.2.5 lac to Rs.50,000/- per month on
the basis of material positively available. Further, it is admitted by the
counsel that when the right to cross-examination of respondent in
2012 was closed the said order was not challenged by the petitioner,
the same becomes final at the time of passing the final judgment. The
petitioner is even not ready to comply the direction issued by the trial
court which are issued in the impugned judgment but at the same
time the petitioner has challenged the findings of the judgment which
are legally correct and there is no legal infirmity. I do not find any
reason to interfere or to take a different view by exercising my
discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the present case. The
petition is accordingly dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 6th April, 2015
Crl. M.C. No.850/2015 & Crl. M.A. No.3213/2015
PRASHANT OJHA
versus
SHALU OJHA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL273https://www.lawweb.in/2016/06/when-principles-of-natural-justice-is.html
