Sri. Sanjeev Kumar.G Vs Smt. Anitha Kumari

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.24345 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI SANJEEV KUMAR G. II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HOSPETE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS CURRENTLY R/AT NO.F5, 3^RD FLOOR ANANTHA PREMIUM APARTMENT 2^ND CROSS, M.J. NAGAR HOSPETE-583 201

¶7

… PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI SHASHIKUMAR FOR SRI B.V.BADRINATH, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT.ANITHA KUMARI W/O.SRI SANJEEV KUMAR G. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.371/28 BEHIND KPTCL 23^RD WARD LAND MARK SLN FLOOR MILL, CHAMARAJPET CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI YESHWANTH NETHAJI N.T. FOR

¶14

SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATES)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.8 IN MC.NO.57/2023 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT CHIKKABALLAPURA VIDE ANNEXURE-T.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the order dated 17.08.2024 passed on IA.No.8 in MC.No.57/2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Chikkaballapura.

¶22

The petitioner-husband had filed an application before the Family Court under Rule 6 (6.1) of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2020’) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to appear through Video Conferencing for tendering his evidence and also subjecting himself for cross examination.

¶23

The said application was seriously objected to by the respondent-wife through the counsel and on submissions of both parties, the Family Court dismissed application filed by the petitioner by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-husband is before this Court challenging the same.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶25

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner-husband that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the said Rules and the procedure laid down for evidence to be recorded through Video Conferencing facilities. It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the Family Court has made certain observations with regard to the petitioner delaying and protracting the proceedings, which is not true as the petitioner made all efforts to reconcile the matter and participate through Video Conferencing procedure through the District Legal Services Authority and therefore, he contends that he made all efforts to participate in the mediation process but it is not due to the delayed tactics of the petitioner, the matter could not proceed further. It is also contended that the learned Judge of the Family Court has committed an error by holding that the petitioner is at fault for prolonging and protracting the proceedings.

¶26

4.1 It is contended by learned counsel that the petitioner is a Judicial Officer and in view of him

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶29

performing his judicial duty at JMFC, Hosapete, which is about 450 kms. away from the Family Court at Chikkaballapura, it would be very difficult for him to travel and secondly, he would have to take permission every time to leave the Head Quarters and jurisdiction of the Court, where he works. It is also contended by learned counsel that the learned Judge of the Family Court has failed to consider Rule 8 of the said Rules, which provides for recording of evidence through Video Conferencing mode and has overruled the provision framed in Rule 8.6

¶30

of the Rules of 2020, which states that - ‘the Court would be liberty to record the demeanour of the person being examined’.

¶31

4.2 It is also contended by learned counsel for

¶32

petitioner that the petitioner is also seeking recording of his evidence and cross-examination through Video Conferencing for the reason that he cannot avail Casual Leave and Earned Leave as a matter of right as it is in the hands of the higher Judicial Officers to grant him leave and

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶34

more so, he cannot come before the Court as and when the Court gives the date for cross-examination as the same would depend upon leave being granted to him. It is further contended that all these aspects have not been considered by the learned Judge of the Family Court while dismissing the application holding that the petitioner has prolonged and protracted the proceedings.

¶35

4.3 Therefore, it is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is without application of mind and without considering the said Rules formulated by the High Court. It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioner that by providing this Video Conferencing facilities, no harm or hardship or inconvenience would be caused to the respondent as the respondent would be at liberty to cross-examine the petitioner through Video Conferencing facility, which would be available as and when the date is given by the learned Family Court Judge, thereby there would not be any

¶36

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶37

hardship to the respondent in case of permitting Video Conferencing facilities.

¶38

4.4 Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon the following judgments in support of his case:

¶39

i) Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh reported in (2018)1 SCC 1;

¶40

ii) T.V.Veeraprasad and Others vs. Sri Prakash Gandhi in WP.No.8283/2022 [Decided on

¶41

01.07.2022];

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-wife vehemently contends that there is no flaw or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court and the order of dismissal is perfectly in consonance with the Rules of 2020. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondent that the Rules of 2020 so framed is specifically made to expedient to consolidate, unify and streamline the procedure relating to use of Video Conferencing for Courts. Learned counsel for respondent relies upon Rule 5 of the Rules, 2020, which is a

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶44

Preparatory Arrangements, more specifically, Rule 5.3.3 - Mediation Centre or office of District Legal Services Authority (including Taluka Legal Services Committee) where the Advocate or Required Person is at the following Remote Point and the Remote Point Coordinator shall be any authorised person official nominated by the Chairperson or Secretary of the concerned District Legal Services Authority. While relying upon the said Rule, learned counsel contends that the petitioner would find it difficult even to approach the District Legal Services Authority or the Taluk Legal Services Committee and the Remote Point Coordinator shall have to coordinate through the Legal Services Authority for the purpose of adducing evidence through the remote point.

¶45

5.1 Learned counsel for respondent also relies upon Rule 6 of the Rules of 2020 which falls within Chapter III-

¶46

the Procedure for Video Conferencing, wherein Rules 6.1 and 6.2 read as under:

¶47

“6. Application for Appearance, Evidence and Submission by Video Conferencing:

¶48

8 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶50

6.1 Any party to the proceeding or witness, save and except where proceedings are initiated at the instance of the Court, may move a request for vide conferencing. A party or witness seeking a video conferencing proceeding shall do so by making a request in the form prescribed in Schedule II.

¶51

6.2 Any proposal to move a request to for vide conferencing should first be discussed with the other party or parties to the proceeding, except where it is not possible or inappropriate, for example in cases such as urgent applications.”

¶52

5.2 It is vehemently contended by learned counsel

¶53

for respondent that the petitioner has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 6.1 by making a request in the form prescribed in Schedule II. Therefore, the application filed itself is flawed and it is not in the prescribed procedure and Rules. Secondly, he contends that any such proposal to move a request for Video Conferencing as contemplated under Rule 6.2 should be

¶54

first discussed with the other party or the parties to the

¶55

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶56

proceedings, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, having violated Rules 6.1 and 6.2 of the Rules of 2020, the application came to be dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in consonance to the Rules. Hence, it cannot be termed as capricious, arbitrary and illegal.

¶57

5.3 Learned counsel for respondent also contends that upon reading Rule 6.2 of the Rules of 2020, it specifies very clearly that the proposal to move a request for Video Conferencing should be first discussed with the other party except where it is not possible or inappropriate, which would be in cases of urgent applications. In the present case, admittedly, there is no proposal or discussion with the respondent to move a request for Video Conferencing as required under Rule 6.2.

¶58

5.4 It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent that in cases of matrimonial dispute, it will be necessary for both parties to be present before the Court initially and thereafter, the Court shall make an effort to

¶59

10 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶61

send the matter for reconciliation process namely, mediation for trying to resolve the matter before going into the merits of the matter. In the present case, the petitioner has not appeared before the Mediation Centre. Therefore, there was no effort made by the petitioner to appear before the Mediator to make an endeavor to resolve the dispute between himself and the respondent. It is also contended that in matrimonial proceedings, the demeanour of the witness would be essential for the Court to notice and the counsel would have the chance of expressing the demeanour of the witness in the crossexamination. Under the circumstances, he contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is sustainable as it is in consonance to the Rules of 2020 and there is no arbitrariness and illegality in the impugned order. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner and affirm the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court.

¶62

11 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶64

5.5 Learned counsel for respondent relies upon the

¶65

following judgments in support of his case:

¶66

i) Dr.Aakash Shantharam Shetty v. Dr.Shalmali Aakash Shetty in WP.No.24228/2023

¶67

[Decided on 01.10.2024];

¶68

ii) Dr.Mrs.Shilpa Ranjan Mulki v. Dr.Dheeraj Kumar in WP.No.11591/2023 & conn.matter

¶69

[Decided on 18.03.2024];

¶70

iii) Relevant portions of Santhini v. Vijaya

¶71

Venketesh reported in (2018)1 SCC 1;

¶72

iv) Relevant portions of T.G.Veeraprasad and Others V. Prakash Gandhi and Others reported in MANU/KA/2963/2022 [WP.No.8283/2022, decided on

¶73

01.07.2022];

¶74

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶75

learned counsel for respondent and gone through the impugned order.

¶76

12 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶78

Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and due to certain differences, they are before the Court on a petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a Judicial Officer and hence, he filed an application seeking to record his examination-in-chief and cross-examination through Video Conferencing. It is also a

¶79

fact that the Judicial Officer is presently working at Hosapete and the proceedings for divorce are initiated before the Family Court at Chikkaballapura and there is a distance of 450 kms., which is quite a long distance and it would be difficult for him to travel each time on each appearance before the Court. As the mediation has failed, presently, the case is posted for recording of evidence.

¶80

Apparently, it is seen that the application so filed by the petitioner in IA.No.8 is filed for recording of the evidence of the petitioner and subjecting himself for crossexamination through Video Conferencing. The recording of evidence through Video Conferencing is governed by the

¶81

13 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶83

Rules of 2020. As per the Rules, any person making an application for appearance, evidence and submission by Video Conferencing will have to do so as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2020 by making a request in the form prescribed in Schedule II.

¶84

In the present case on hand, the application in IA.No.8 is annexed to this petition at Annexure-R, wherein no procedure is followed by making a request in the form prescribed in Schedule II as contemplated under the Rules of 2020. It is also seen that no proposal has been made to move a request for the Video Conferencing through the respondent. However, there is no such application filed or no efforts is made or no material is placed before the Court to substantiate the same.

¶85

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent are at loggerheads and there is no possibility of making a request to the respondent. Be that as it may, when the Rules contemplate a particular thing to be done in a particular

¶86

14 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶88

manner, it would have to be done so in the same manner. The learned Judge of the Family Court has dealt with the application and the objections by holding that the petitioner has not followed the requisite procedure as contemplated under the Rules of 2020. It is specifically stated that Rule 6.2 is not followed and so also, Schedule II prescribed has not been adhered to. However, this Court is not inclined to accept other findings of the Family Court with regard to adjournments being taken on several circumstances by the petitioner.

¶89

It is also true that mere asking of the request for

¶90

Video Conferencing by one party is not an inherent right available to the person as he will have to comply with the requirements under the Rules of 2020 and if he satisfies the requirement of the Rules as strictly contemplated under the Rules of 2020, then the Court would consider the request in accordance to the Rules. The Family Court, not being satisfied with the procedure so followed by the petitioner, has rightly dismissed the application.

¶91

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶92

Be that as it may, in the case on hand, it is to be taken note of that the petitioner is a Judicial Officer and he is presently posted to Hosapete, which is at a distance of around 450 Kms. from the Family Court at Chikkaballapura. In the matters of this nature, where certain sensitive posts such as Judicial Officers/Delegates coming under the hierarchs are parties to the proceedings,

¶93

an endeavour would have to be made by the Family Court to see that the parties are provided with conducive atmosphere, preferable time and date of hearing and privacy by way of in camera proceedings and also expeditious disposal of the case. In the present facts of the case, the petitioner being a Judicial Officer, some lenience and discretion ought to have to be exercised by the learned Judge of the Family Court by asking learned counsel for both parties that if they are agreeable for conducting the proceedings through in camera on specific dates that would be agreeable to both parties, which has not been done in the present case.

¶94

16 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶96

The learned Judge of the Family Court, while dealing with the case of a Judicial Officer of the present nature would be the best person, to understand and know the functions and duties of another Judicial Officer and the difficulties in obtaining leave or to participate in the proceedings in another Court by appearing before all the litigants and Advocates, as this is a matter of concern/confidentiality and where the privacy ought to have been kept in mind, which is anyway contemplated under the Family Courts Act, 1984. In every matter irrespective of the parties being of high profile/sensitive posts or being in a very difficult position to attend the matters in open public, the cases could be taken incamera, the learned Judge of the Family Court has not adverted to all these aspects from the time of filing of the petition and has wasted lot of time in referring the matter to mediation, which has not fructified and now the parties are still in the same stage, where it began that is at the initial stage itself thereby having not moved a step forward. However, this Court is not inclined to delve into

¶97

17 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶99

the merits of the matter as it would hamper the interest of both parties.

¶100

Coming back to the application in IA.No.8 on

¶101

hand, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to differ with the opinion expressed by the learned Judge of

¶102

the Family Court in dismissing the said application. However, if the learned Judge of the Family Court had given a fair opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent and provided dates for conducting the proceedings through in camera, then, the said application could have been disposed amicably.

¶103

Under the circumstances, I pass the following

¶104

order:

¶105

i) This petition is disposed off ;

¶106

ii) I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in dismissing the application of the petitioner;

¶107

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶108

iii) The learned Judge of the Family Court is hereby directed to conduct the proceedings by way of in-camera;

¶109

iv) The petitioner and the respondent are at liberty to file a memo with regard to specific date and time by showing the date on which the petitioner would examine himself and on which date, the matter shall be taken in camera by the learned Judge of the Family Court;

¶110

v) The petitioner shall also provide date to the Court as to on which date, he will make himself available to subject himself for cross-examination well in advance, so that he can make necessary arrangements for taking leave and permission to leave the Headquarters to attend the Court proceedings;

¶111

vi) The learned Judge of the Family Court shall make all endeavour to see that recording of evidence of the petitioner is concluded in one day with regard to examination-in-chief in the proceedings;

¶112

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:10758 WP No. 24345 of 2024

¶113

vii) The learned Judge of the Family Court shall also make an endeavour to complete the crossexamination through the respondent expeditiously;

¶114

viii) The parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent are requested to cooperate with the proceedings before the Family Court and expedite the matter without taking unnecessary adjournments;

¶115

ix) The cost imposed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is set-aside;

¶116

Ordered accordingly.

¶117

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶118

LB

¶119

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri. Sanjeev Kumar.G v. Smt. Anitha Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sanjeev Kumar.G v. Smt. Anitha Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Mehraj Abdul Kareem Vs Mrs. Dilshad

Shashanka Vs Nagaraju P

Smt Yallavva Kumar Kandli @ Yallavva Vs Ramesh D.H.

Narayanaswamy M.V Vs Smt. Ashwini K .v

Mrs. R. Leelavathi Vs Mr. C.T. Nagaraja

Smt. Snehal Dure P Vs Sri Sachin S