The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a family court order that imposed a financial burden on a woman in a divorce case.
The family court had mandated that the woman bear the travel expenses of her husband, amounting to ₹1.65 lakh, from the USA to Bengaluru if she desired to cross-examine him. A single-judge Justice Krishna S Dixit noted that such a condition would essentially deny the petitioner’s fundamental right to cross-examine her husband in a matter as crucial as the dissolution of their marriage.
The bench emphasized that it is not within the jurisdiction of the courts to impose a condition on a party that they would be unable to fulfill. Such a requirement would go against the principles of justice.
“Putting a condition of the kind would virtually amount to foreclosing petitioner’s right to cross- to examine/further cross-examine the respondent that too in a serious matter in which her marriage is at stake. Courts of justice cannot stipulate a condition to a party which he or she will not be in a position to comply with. In any circumstance, the condition in question being bereft of elements of justice, is unsustainable,” the bench noted.
The single judge was considering an appeal lodged by the wife against a family court’s decision in a dissolution of marriage case initiated by her husband.
The wife argued that it was unreasonable to impose such a substantial payment condition when she was already receiving a monthly maintenance of ₹20,000, some of which remained unpaid.
On the contrary, the husband opposed the appeal and defended both the court’s order and the reasons provided.
The High Court observed that the family court had already ordered the petitioner to receive monthly maintenance. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that this maintenance was intended for the petitioner, who appeared to lack any means of supporting herself.
Given this circumstance, the bench expressed astonishment at the rationale behind instructing the petitioner to bear the travel expenses of her employed husband.
The Court noted that the respondent-husband was not financially incapable of traveling to India, considering that he himself had initiated the case.
While acknowledging that the petitioner may have erred by not examining her husband while he was in Bengaluru, the Court recognized that she provided a reasonable explanation for her choice.
Furthermore, it was emphasized that both parties expressed their willingness to conduct the cross-examination through video conference.
In light of these factors, the Court granted the plea and set aside the family court’s order.
