In Tarushi Rathore v. Sanjay Rathore, CM(M) 2002/2026 (decided 10 September 2026), Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar of the Delhi High Court declined to interfere, under Article 227 of the Constitution, with a Family Court order appointing a Local Commissioner to record evidence in a contested petition under the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner urged that evidence be recorded in the courtroom itself, before the judge, given the anticipated conduct of the opposite party. The High Court found the Family Court's order "fairly elaborate", covering the eventualities that concern parties in commissioner-recorded evidence, and held the open-court suggestion impractical given judicial workload. The order is a window into how contested divorce trials in Delhi actually move — and the limits of supervisory interference with case-management choices.
The challenge
In a pending HMA petition before Family Court-02, the trial judge assigned the recording of evidence to a Local Commissioner. The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 227, contending that evidence should be recorded in the courtroom with the judge present to manage disputes as they arise — a concern grounded, according to counsel, in the nature and conduct of the respondent.
Why the High Court declined to interfere
Justice Shankar accepted the practical premise of commissioner-recorded evidence: a Family Court judge handling a full daily board cannot devote continuous sittings to a single trial, and insisting on open-court recording "may not be practical in nature". Decisive, though, was the quality of the Family Court's order — described as fairly elaborate and as taking into account "various eventualities". With safeguards built into the appointment itself, no supervisory correction was warranted; any live difficulty during the recording can be carried back to the Family Court.
How commissioner-recorded evidence works in Delhi matrimonial trials
Commissioner proceedings are court proceedings. Non-appearance carries the same consequences as absence before the judge, and conduct before the commissioner — recorded in the minutes — can colour the court\'s view of a party. Prepare for a commissioner date exactly as for a court date.
Strategic notes
For parties anxious about an aggressive opponent, the better course than resisting the appointment is shaping it: seek specific directions in the appointment order — videography where justified, security of the venue, a schedule that prevents drip-feed adjournments, and liberty to approach the court on 48 hours\' notice if recording is obstructed. For the party seeking expedition, a commissioner calendar is usually the fastest path through a heavy witness list, and Delhi Family Courts grant it readily. And for both sides, this order is a reminder that CM(M) petitions against case-management directions rarely succeed and cost months; the energy is better spent inside the trial framework the Family Court has built.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do Family Courts appoint Local Commissioners to record evidence?
Contested matrimonial trials involve lengthy examination and cross-examination. Recording it all in open court would consume sittings the judge needs for the daily board. Commissioners — usually experienced advocates — record the depositions on the court's behalf on scheduled dates, and the recorded evidence is then read by the judge, who alone decides the case.
What safeguards apply before a commissioner?
The appointment order typically fixes venue and schedule, requires verbatim recording, empowers the commissioner to note demeanour and any obstruction, reserves disputed questions of admissibility for the court, and directs that objections be recorded and carried to the judge. A detailed order of this kind is exactly what the High Court found adequate here.
Can a party insist that the judge personally record the evidence?
A party may request it, and courts retain discretion in sensitive situations. But there is no entitlement: where the appointment order is comprehensive, the High Court will not, in supervisory jurisdiction, substitute its own case-management preference. Concerns arising during recording can be raised before the Family Court as they occur.
What is the scope of Article 227 against such orders?
Supervisory jurisdiction corrects jurisdictional error and perversity; it is not an appeal over discretionary, procedural orders. Interlocutory case-management directions of Family Courts are among the least likely candidates for interference.