RAIPUR: Affirming that a fair trial hinges on the right to test financial claims, the Chhattisgarh High Court overturned a family court order that barred a husband from questioning his estranged wife about her declared income and assets during maintenance proceedings. The HC stated that cross-examination on income is a right for both.
High Court Judge Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed that courts cannot curb a litigant’s statutory right to cross-examine financial affidavits submitted in line with Supreme Court guidelines, cautioning trial courts against adopting practices that curtail a party's defense.
The petitioner, 34-year-old Akhil Sahani, a Durg resident, was facing maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) initiated by his estranged wife, Aditi. Following the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, both parties placed their respective asset and income affidavits on record.
However, during cross-examination before the Second Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court in Durg, the judge abruptly restrained Sahani from questioning his wife regarding her income sources and the contents of her asset disclosure. The family court halted the line of questioning and adjourned the matter to September 11, 2026. Sahani then challenged the restriction before the High Court arguing that gagging his defense violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the proceedings unfair.
Justice Vyas permitted the husband to resume questioning the wife on her affidavit when the trial reconvenes on September 11. To ensure fairness to both sides, the bench noted that the wife is equally at liberty to cross-examine the husband on his financial filings to ascertain his true earnings.
The High Court emphasised that while trial judges must prevent unnecessary repetition, irrelevant questioning, and courtroom time wasting, they must not overstep by choking a litigant’s right to cross-examine.
The High Court directed the family court judge to strike a prudent balance between providing fair opportunities and preventing undue dragging of cases. The bench directed the Registrar General to communicate the order to the concerned judge within 24 hours as a caution for future trials, while noting that the wife retains the liberty to seek a recall since the order was passed on the board without prior notice issued to her.