NITIKA GUPTA vs SATYA DEV GUPTA

Judgment text excerpt

$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07th August, 2025 + CM(M) 1465/2025 & CM APPL. 48305-48306/2025 NITIKA GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Advocate. versus SATYA DEV GUPTA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a custody case filed by her parents-in-law whereby they are seeking custody of their grand-daughter. 2. The Court has seen orders which are under challenge i.e. orders dated 17.04.2025 and 15.05.2025. 3. During course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has restricted his request to one point. 4. He submits that, though, there was insistence from the side of petitioner (mother of the child in question) to have amended memo of parties to be placed on record and, thereafter, to further cross-examine them, learned counsel for petitioner now realizes that the situation could have been averted and petitioner herein should have rather cross examined the concerned witness i.e. PW-1/Mr. Satya Dev Gupta (respondent herein), without insisting for amended memo of parties to be first taken on record. 5. The requirement of amended memo of parties arose because of the fact Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1465/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:08.08.2025 17:33:47 that Ms. Sudha Gupta, who was petitioner No.2 in such custody case, had expired, in the interregnum. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner herein submits that learned Principal Judge, Family Court has, on such insistence and adamancy being shown by her, has closed her right to cross-examine the abovesaid witness and if she is not permitted to further cross-examine him, it might result in serious prejudice to her defence. 7. None appears on behalf of respondent despit