SONI GUPTA vs GAURAV GARG

Judgment text excerpt

$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17th July, 2025 + CM(M) 1248/2025, CM APPL. 41971/2025 & CM APPL. 41972/2025 SONI GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Panwar, Ms. Nividita Panwar, Mr. Ravi Panwar, Ms. S.D. Baloni, Mr. N. Kishore and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocates versus GAURAV GARG .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a divorce petition filed by her husband. 2. After completion of pleadings and framing of issues, a Local Commissioner was appointed and evidence is being recorded by learned Local Commissioner. 3. As per terms of appointment of Local Commissioner, the entire expenditure with respect to such Commission is to be borne by the husband (respondent herein). 4. Since his cross-examination kept going for quite some time and was partly conducted on seven previous dates, eventually, the learned Judge, Family Court directed the petitioner herein to conclude such cross- examination in two dates, instead of three dates, as requested by the petitioner. The wife has also been asked to bear further expenditure of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1248/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:19.07.2025 12:49:36 Commission as trial is getting pushed and overextended by her. 5. Such order is under challenge. 6. During course of arguments, Mr. S.S. Panwar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he would conclude the cross-examination within the aforesaid two dates before the learned Local Commissioner and also submits that though it was not warranted, the wife would bear the cost of Local Commissioner for said two dates as well. 7. He, however, contends that application filed by the wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is yet n