The court should discard the objection of your wife as she has no right to dictate to court to how cross examination is to be conducted. Unless the respondent himself is to be cross examined there is no reason why the cross examination should not proceed. If the court allows adjournment on this ground then move the High Court to challenge its order.

1. It is a well settled proposition of law that for cross examination , prayer has to be made and she can not insist on the attendance of all in the court for conducting cross examination,

2. Cross examination will be conducted one by one as being directed by the Court,

3. In a DV case presence of all the Respondents/Accused are not necessary at all.

1) in DV case presence of respondents is not necessary . It is sufficient if they are represented by lawyer

2) even if respondents remain absent warrant is not issued by court

HI

It is true. APR

2

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an ex-parte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party.

G. V. Raman vs Emperor AIR 1928 is the leading case of privy council and held that conference cross examination is not permitted in evidence act. Only one witness or accused is examined at one time. Sunil mehta vs Ashish kumar 2012 SCC court reiterated same principle.

The wife cannot compel the presence of all the respondents before the court and then only shall cooperate with the cross examination. It is is illegal stand. The court shall not allow such a decision. The petition if any filed in this regard shall stand dismissed because one cannot compel the court to act on his/her designs. Court is not for the party. DV proceedings are civil (quasi - criminal) in nature. So attendance is not mandatory. Judge can not issue warrants.

i) In Gundu Chandrasekhar vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh , a learned judge of this High Court observed thus:

None of the reliefs claimed in D.V.C. No.8 of 2011 by the 2nd respondent can be called crimes. Though, the Act empowers a Magistrate to entertain the complaint of an aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Act and makes it incumbent on the Magistrate to make enquiry of the same under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are in the nature of civil reliefs only. It is only violation of order of the Magistrate which becomes an offence under Section 31 of the Act and which attracts penalty for breach of protection order by any of the respondents. Similarly Section 33 of the Act provides for penalty for discharging duty by Protection Officer. Except under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act which occur in Chapter V, all the reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the Act are not offences and enquiry of rights of the aggrieved person under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act cannot be termed as trial of a criminal case.

ii) In Mohit Yadam and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , a learned judge of this High Court observed thus:

None of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has direct penal consequences. Para 23: Under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the Respondent shall be an offence under the Act. Therefore, all other orders passed under Sections 17,18,19,20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have no penal consequences, even if the Respondent committed breach of the order, except as provided under Section 31 of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the proceedings conducted till passing of the orders under Section 18 to 22 are only civil in nature to provide a civil remedy. Thus it is a civil comfit packed with a criminal wrapper.

1) if yiu are able to prove that wife never had 5 acres of land it would amount to perjury

2) making false statement on oath is an offence

3) wife who has worked in past is not entitled to any maintenance

Wife mentioned in complaint of DVC and 498 that I harressed her to sell the 5 acers of agricultural land and get that money and give it to me. Question:What if I can prove that she don't have any 5 acers of agricultural land.Since they kept false case, If i prove this wht will be the punishment for this kind of false statement give by her?

If you prove her to be wrong, you can get the case dismissed in your favor, after that you can file a perjury case against her.

Question:I heard of some law where a person who is working so long and suddently quite the job will not be getting intem-maintanance? is there any kinda of section? In DVC complaint she mentioned that she will work in future.

You have rightly heard that she cannot sit idle for the purpose of claiming maintenance.

In an appeal in a family court in Delhi, the court observed thus

 It is also the admitted fact on record that appellant had been working 

regularly prior to her marriage and had also even worked for about one month after 

her marriage.  However, she had tried to cover up her subsequent un­employment 

by making vague pleas that her place of employment was far off from her residence 

and the alleged objections raised by her parents in law, who wanted her to be back 

at home within a reasonable time. It is the settled proposition of law as it exists as on date, that a woman 

capable of being earning, if she voluntarily chooses not to engage herself into a 

gainful employment then she cannot claim maintenance from her husband. 

However, in the given set of facts and circumstances of the case and 

especially when no cogent reason has been furnished by the appellant before the 

Ld. Trial Court for her non­taking up an employment after her marriage either at 

her matrimonial home or at parental home, where she is stated to be residing since 

17.12.2013 after having allegedly being thrown out of her matrimonial home by 

the Respondent herein, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned 

order as passed by the Ld. MM, which was based purely upon the factual contents 

of the respective affidavits of the parties, whereby the Ld. MM had denied and 

declined to award an interim maintenance to the appellant no. 1.

In another case where court dismissed petition for interim maintenance observed as follows:

While   deciding   interim   maintenance   following parameters are taken into consideration and (i) they are the income of husband, (ii) the income of wife, (iii) the liability of husband, (iv) liability of wife, (v) life style of parties, (vi) the living standard of   parties,   (vii)   any   order   of   maintenance   passed   in   other proceedings, (viii) dependants upon husband, (ix) dependants upon wife, (x) the needs of wife etc.  These are the parameters, which Court needs to take into consideration while deciding the issue of interim maintenance.

 My attention was drawn to para No. 14, page No. 14 of the said Order, where the Session Judge has observed that in her application she has not stated what are her needs and for what purpose she requires the amount of Rs. 50,000/­

The Ld. Session Judge is also observed in para No. 19 that wife has not come to the Court with the clean hands and has not disclosed her income in all her fairness.

The provision of interim maintenance is made for those women who are unable to maintain themselves.  The said provision is not for such litigation who are fighting luxurious litigation.  The maintenance is for sustaining  and not for luxury.  Maintenance is for keeping body and soul together.  I do not think application has merit, therefore application need to be rejected.  

Likewise there are plenty of judgment rejecting the interim maintenance on the grounds similar to your situation.

The punishment is 2 years on being found guilty. A wife who does not work but has worked in the past is entitled to claim financial support.