Headnotes
A litigant's counsel remained unavailable for a scheduled cross-examination because she was eight months pregnant and had been medically advised bed rest. The trial court restored the opportunity to cross-examine but conditioned that relief on the litigant paying ₹25,000 in costs to the opposing counsel. The Delhi High Court held that costs are meant to deter avoidable defaults and reasonably compensate the aggrieved party, but should not become an unduly heavy burden where genuine cause for the absence has been established, and waived the costs, setting aside that part of the trial court's order.
Key Takeaways
- A lawyer's medically-advised bed rest during pregnancy is sufficient cause for non-appearance, and the litigant they represent should not be financially penalised for it once that cause is established.
- Costs for procedural defaults serve a deterrent and compensatory function, not a punitive one — where the default is genuinely excused, imposing a heavy cost defeats that purpose.
- The ruling reflects a broader judicial expectation of a sensitive, humane approach toward women lawyers facing maternity-related professional disruptions.
Full Judgment Text
The Delhi High Court has waived ₹25,000 in costs imposed on a litigant after his counsel, then eight months pregnant and advised bed rest, could not appear for a scheduled cross-examination.
FACTS:
The litigant's main counsel was unavailable for cross-examination before the trial court because she was eight months pregnant and had been medically advised bed rest. The trial court restored the opportunity for cross-examination but made that relief conditional on the litigant paying ₹25,000 in costs to the respondent's counsel.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Ajay Digpaul held that costs are intended to deter avoidable defaults and reasonably compensate the aggrieved party, but should not become an unduly heavy burden once genuine cause for the absence has been demonstrated. The Court held that "the petitioner ought not to be burdened with heavy costs, particularly when sufficient cause for the absence has been duly demonstrated," and stressed the need for a sensitive, humane approach toward women lawyers facing maternity-related issues.
HOLDING:
The Delhi High Court waived the ₹25,000 costs and set aside the part of the trial court's order that had conditioned the cross-examination opportunity on payment of that amount.
Source: LiveLaw, "Bed Rest During Pregnancy Is Sufficient Cause For Lawyer's Absence: Delhi High Court Waives ₹25K Costs," September 7, 2026.
FACTS:
The litigant's main counsel was unavailable for cross-examination before the trial court because she was eight months pregnant and had been medically advised bed rest. The trial court restored the opportunity for cross-examination but made that relief conditional on the litigant paying ₹25,000 in costs to the respondent's counsel.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Ajay Digpaul held that costs are intended to deter avoidable defaults and reasonably compensate the aggrieved party, but should not become an unduly heavy burden once genuine cause for the absence has been demonstrated. The Court held that "the petitioner ought not to be burdened with heavy costs, particularly when sufficient cause for the absence has been duly demonstrated," and stressed the need for a sensitive, humane approach toward women lawyers facing maternity-related issues.
HOLDING:
The Delhi High Court waived the ₹25,000 costs and set aside the part of the trial court's order that had conditioned the cross-examination opportunity on payment of that amount.
Source: LiveLaw, "Bed Rest During Pregnancy Is Sufficient Cause For Lawyer's Absence: Delhi High Court Waives ₹25K Costs," September 7, 2026.