JUDGMENT Rohit Arya, J. - I.A.No. 9315/2022, an application for urgent hearing during Winter Vacation is taken up for consideration and matter is heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. The instant misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of defendant/wife taking exception to the impugned order dated 21/12/2022 of Family Court, Gwalior. 3. The petitioner is a defendant in a divorce suit filed by respondent/husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in year 2012. 4. The petitioner is a resident of district Bhopal. For recording her statement and cross-examination she has been travelling from Bhopal to Gwalior. Her cross-examination was started on 25/11/2022 and continued on different dates viz. 7/12/2022 and 13/12/2022. However, on 21/12/2022, the petitioner could not reach Gwalior due to unavoidable circumstances. In her absence, her cross-examination has been closed. 5. Shri Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during her cross-examination on successive dates, she never defaulted. On single default, the closure of her cross-examination half way shall cause serious prejudice to her as her entire evidence may be discredited. 6. Petitioner is prepared to abide by such terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court in fitness of things for completion of cross-examination in the divorce suit. 7. Prayer is vehemently opposed with the submission that petitioner is a chronic defaulter and same is well evident from the fact that divorce suit was filed in year 2012 and now at a distance of time of more than 10 years, the evidence has not been completed for which petitioner is responsible. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. 8. However, learned counsel does not dispute that even since her cross-examination was started, she has appeared before the Court on aforesaid dates and there was only single default during the course of her cross-examination when the impugned order was passed. 9. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is apposite to observe that procedural laws are hand maid laws and not the mistress of judicial process. Indeed, the procedural laws are required to be adhered by the trial Court ensuring discipline of law nevertheless the same may not be used to cause prejudice which may result into miscarriage of justice. 10. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is apposite to observe that procedural laws are hand maid laws and not the mistress of judicial process. Indeed, the procedural laws are required to be adhered by the trial Court ensuring discipline of law nevertheless the same may not be used to cause prejudice which may result into miscarriage of justice. 10. In the obtaining facts and circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that incomplete cross-examination of petitioner/defendant/wife shall cause serious prejudice to her right to defend. Therefore, in the fitness of things, this Court hereby orders that the Family Court shall complete the cross-examination of the petitioner on a date to be fixed. Failure or non-appearance of petitioner on the said date shall revive the impugned order. The said indulgence of this Court is ofcourse subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff/husband. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 12. Both parties shall appear before the Family Court on 3rd January, 2023 on which date the Family Court shall fix the date of cross-examination. 13. With the aforesaid, misc. petition stands disposed of.