Smt Rathi Kartheek v. Sri Sanjeev Ravindran

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2025WP/474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

video conferencing; recording of evidence through VC; court commissioner; advocate commissioner; Order 26 Rule 4 CPC; Order 18 Rule 4 CPC; Rule 6 Video Conferencing Rules; Section 151 CPC; Covid-19 VC rules; consulate officer presence; demeanour of witness; NRI wife residing in USA; minor children aged 14 and 16; power of attorney holder died 02.08.2023; MC.No.159/2019 divorce; Family Court Bengaluru; GM-FC; writ petition disposed; deadline 15.12.2025; Karnataka High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the petitioner; the writ petition is disposed off, all pending I.As. in the writ petition stand closed, and the Family Court is directed to expeditiously dispose of MC.No.159/2019 by 15th December, 2025. ¶¶55

Smt Rathi Kartheek Vs Sri Sanjeev Ravindran — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the wife (respondent in MC.No.159/2019), residing in the United States of America with the couple's minor children, may be permitted to have her evidence recorded through video conferencing by a court commissioner instead of appearing before the Family Court. +1 more

¶¶40

Court's answer

Since the divorce case was filed by the husband in 2019, the wife has to come before the court and complete her evidence; she cannot say that even for a short time she cannot come.

¶¶45

Ratio / Principle

There is no provision for appointing an advocate commissioner to record evidence through video conferencing; the trial court rightly held so, and this court endorses that view.

¶¶41

Key takeaways

While recording evidence, the demeanour of the witness is very much important, supporting the requirement of the party's presence before the court.ratio¶¶45
The Video Conferencing Rules were made during the Covid-19 period and, unless and until the rules are amended, it is practically not possible to implement them (observation recalled by this court from an earlier case).obiter¶¶41
When parties reside outside the country, somebody from the consulate ought to be present while evidence is recorded, but it is practically not possible for a consulate officer to be present in each and every case (observation recalled by this court from an earlier case).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.), W.P. No.474/2025 (GM-FC), decided 17.07.2025: The wife, respondent in MC.No.159/2019 (divorce petition filed by the husband in 2019), challenged the Family Court's order dated 16.12.2024 dismissing her IA No.XIII (filed under Order 26 Rule 4 r/w Rule 5 and Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Rule 6 of the Video Conferencing Rules and Section 151 CPC) seeking recording of her evidence through video conference via a court-appointed commissioner, she residing in the USA with the minor sons (aged 14 and 16) after her father/power-of-attorney holder died on 02.08.2023. Held: there is no provision for appointing an advocate commissioner to record evidence through video conferencing; the Video Conferencing Rules, framed during Covid-19, are impracticable to implement unless amended; presence of a consulate officer for parties abroad is impracticable in every case; the demeanour of the witness is very much important; video-conference facilities in the court are not proper; and the wife must come to India and complete her evidence/cross-examination. Finding no reason to interfere with the well-considered Family Court order, the writ petition was disposed off, pending I.As. closed, and the Family Court directed to dispose of the MC by 15.12.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26721 WP No. 474 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 474 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT RATHI KARTHEEK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI.SANJEEV RAVINDRAN, 20400, VIA PAVISO, A24 CALIFORNIA 95014 USA …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. SANJEEV RAVINDRAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAVINDRAN, NO.PLH 15183, PRESTIGE LAKESIDE HABIT, SH 35, DEVASTHANAGALU, GUNJUR VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 087 …RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. ANITHA R., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 16.12.2024 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU ON IA NO. XIII FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 4 OF CPC, IN MC.NO. 159/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:26721 WP No. 474 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.XIII in MC.No. 159/2019 dated 16.12.2024 passed by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the wife is before this court.

¶24

Both the parties are referred to his wife and husband for the sake of convenience.

¶25

The husband had filed MC.No.159/2019 seeking divorce. At the time of evidence, the wife had come up with this application under Order 26,Rule-4 R/w Rule-5 R/w with Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC,R/w Rule 6 of the Video Conferencing Rules R/w section 151 of CPC. That application came to be dismissed by the court by order impugned wherein the family court has observed that the court commissioner is examining the witness where actually the witness is residing. But here the respondent side have sought appointing the court commissioner, examining the witness through VC. There is no such procedure recording the evidence of the witness by the court commissioner through VC. In order to examine the witness in the court through VC,

¶26

there is no proper facility so the IA filed by the respondent seeking recording of evidence of the respondent through VC in

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26721 WP No. 474 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the Mediation Centre by the Court Commissioner appointed by the court cannot be entertained accordingly dismissed the application.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that nobody has asked the Court for recording of evidence through VC via Mediation Centre. It is submitted that the wife is residing in United States of America along with the children and her preoccupation with work is not permitting her to come to India. It is stated that in several matters when the evidence is recorded through VC, the Court also ought to have permitted the wife to be examined/cross examined through VC. If she has to come to India, she has to leave the children there and it is not in the interest of the children. The family court without considering difficulties and without assigning proper reasons had dismissed the petition.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that the petition is filed in the year 2019 by the husband seeking divorce. Wife is not interested for reunion with the husband and the matter is pending from 2019. It is submitted that in the several cases, Hon’ble Apex Court,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:26721 WP No. 474 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

particularly in this kind of matters had always insisted for the presence of the parties as the demeanour of the witness is very much important for the court to come to a just and reasonable conclusion.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Before proceeding with the matter, it is appropriate to look at the application. It is filed seeking appointment of court commissioner in the facts and circumstances for recording of evidence of the applicant/respondent through video conference who is presently residing out of Territory of India. In the memorandum of facts, it is stated that the wife has two minor sons born in the wedlock and she is residing along with them in the United States of America. The children who are in tender age pursuing their education in the United States of America and she is also permanently residing in America on account of her employment. Earlier she had appointed her father as her agent and power of attorney holder to attend the case on her behalf and he was contesting the matter. Her father died on 02.08.2023 and ever since she is providing oral instructions to

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:26721 WP No. 474 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

conduct the case. It is stated that there are no other persons in Bangalore. Hence the evidence has to be recorded by appointing a court commissioner through video conference and therefore the present application is filed. If the respondent is not permitted to adduce the evidence through video conferencing, she would be put to greater hardship, loss and inconvenience and on the other hand, no hardship would be caused to the other side.

¶41

The application that is filed is appointing a court commissioner to record the evidence virtually. The trial court had rightly considered and rightly held that there is no such provision for appointing an advocate commissioner to record the evidence through Video Conferencing. The Video Conferencing Rules were framed during the period of Covid-19. This court earlier had an occasion to go through those rules in another case. In that this court has observed that the rules were made during the Covid-19 period, unless and until the rules are amended, it is practically not possible to implement them. When the parties are residing outside the country, somebody from the consulate shall be present while recording

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:26721 WP No. 474 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the evidence. This court has observed that it is practically not possible for the officer from the consulate to be present in each and every case. Apart from that while recording evidence, the demeanour of the witness is very much important and in fact when the matter came up on the last occasion, this court has specifically asked when will it be convenient for the wife to come back, so that this court will direct to complete the crossexamination on the specified dates. On instructions it is submitted that if she comes, the children will be alone there. The age of children are 14 years & 16 years and it is difficult for them to come to India. When the case is filed by the husband in 2019, the wife has to come before the court and complete her evidence. She cannot say that, even for the short time she cannot come. The family court has rightly recorded the findings and has also recorded that the video conference facilities is not proper in the court, however the court has not recorded about the video conferencing rules and requirement of presence of an officer from the Consulate. In view of the above discussion, this application cannot be considered.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:26721 WP No. 474 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In that view of the matter, this court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the family court. This matter is pending before the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. This court has already issued directions to the family courts to dispose of the matters till 2019 by December 15, 2025.

¶50