Sridhruti Chitrapu | 28th of November 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petitioner had filed for dissolution of the marriage with the Respondent. The Respondent had filed an application before the family court for the restitution of Conjugal rights. Both these matters are clubbed together and heard jointly. The petitioner is currently employed in the United States of America and is being represented by her father at the court. She contended that since it was not possible for her to appear before the court on several dates of adjournment, so she has filed the current petition seeking for recording of evidence through video conference from her residence in the United States of America. The Trial court did not grant such permission. The High Court directed her to stay in India for 21 days during which the family court will complete recording her evidence. Post this her cross examination was not recorded and the matter was posted for counter for the respondent. She further contended that the respondent had seized her passport to restrain her from traveling abroad and that this indicates malafide intention. To this the respondent had contended that the subject matter of the issue is such that the father being the petitioner\u2019s representative cannot say what might have transpired between the couple. And further contented that it is not the procedure in law to look into matrimonial issues with the aid of video conference as evidence.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was held that due to the lack of sufficient infrastructural facilities for video conferencing in the Family court complex the request of the petitioner cannot not be acceded to. It was observed by the Honourable court that a witness may be examined by video conferencing if both the parties consented to it and put forth an application to the court as adjudged by the Supreme Court in the case of Santhini vs Vijya Venkatesh. But in the instant case the respondent does not consent to it so the request cannot be entertained. Then the Petitioner had filed a Revision petition, where they contended that the court cannot compel her to leave her employment in the United States of America to attend the day-to-day hearings which will result in losing the job. And also plead that the mentioned case was only applicable in certain cases and the current case does not fall under its perview and it does not take away the power of the family court to record evidence through video conferencing to serve justice. Now as the new circumstances have developed, a video conferencing facility has been set up at the Family court. So, one of the reasons for not conceding to the plea of the petitioner is not longer present. Coming to the second matter at hand the court held that the case stated only pertained to transfer of cases and the family courts have the power to direct video conferencing and recording of evidence through it. Further held that video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he were present before the court. It was observed that as long as the accused or his pleader are present when the evidence is being recorded by video conferencing it fully meets the requirements of the concerned provisions of law. For the above stated reasons, the previous order is set aside and the Family court is directed to record the evidence through video conferencing by affixing a time after obtaining the consent from both the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Sridhruti Chitrapu | 28th of November 2019 Facts The petitioner had filed for dissolution of the marriage with the Respondent. The Respondent had filed an application before the family court for the restitution of Conjugal rights. Both these matters are clubbed together and heard jointly. The petitioner is currently employed in the United States of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":377,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[28],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n