Dismissed

Abisetti Asha Latha , K Asha Latha v. Abisetti Venkat Rao

Telangana HC13 Aug 2013CRP/2204/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the Family Court's order denying permission for cross-examination via video conferencing. The Court held that exercising such discretion depends on facts and circumstances, and in this case, lack of judicial infrastructure justified requiring personal appearance. Under Article 227, this discretionary decision was not subject to interferenc

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Abisetti Asha Latha , K Asha Latha Vs Abisetti… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2204 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 13.08.2013

¶4

Between: Smt. Abisetti Asha Latha @ K.Asha Latha .. Petitioner And Abisetti Venkat Rao .. Respondent

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2204 OF 2013

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The revision petitioner is the respondent in F.C.O.P. No.1241 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad. The respondent herein filed the said O.P. under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce. The revision petitioner contested the O.P by filing a detailed counter. The respondent herein/the petitioner in the O.P. got himself examined as P.W.1. Thereafter the revision petitioner/respondent in O.P. filed her affidavit in the lieu of chief examination. However, instead of appearing before the Court for cross examination, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.777 of 2012 with a prayer to grant permission for her cross examination through video conferencing. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 20.03.2013 and aggrieved by the same the present revision petition is filed.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for both parties.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.777 of 2012 it is pleaded by the revision petitioner that she is residing in U.S.A with her child and therefore she is not in a position to appear before the Court for the purpose of cross examination. Thus, it is prayed by her that she may be cross examined through video conferencing.

¶11

The respondent herein in his counter affidavit contended that there is no such provision either in the Evidence Act or in the Civil Rules of Practice contemplating recording of cross examination through video conferencing. It is also contended that if her prayer for

¶12

cross examination through video conferencing is allowed, the sanctity of the cross examination would be lost.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decisions in Bodala Murali Krishna Vs. Smt. Bodala Prathima^[1] and Amitabh Bagchi Vs. Ena Bagch i^[2] in support of his submission that recording of evidence through the process of video conferencing is permissible under law. Placing reliance upon the decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desa i^[3] it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the term presence does not mean actual physical presence in the Court, and therefore evidence can be recorded through video conferencing.

¶14

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order under revision submitted that it warrants no interference.

¶15

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel, it appears to me that though there is no bar as such for cross examination through video conferencing, the question whether the presence of the witness in the Court for cross examination can be dispensed with or not always depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and it is the discretion of the Court whether to grant permission for cross examination either before the Commissioner or by any other method without insisting on the personal appearance of the witness in the Court. In the present case, the only ground on which the revision petitioner sought her cross examination through video conferencing is that she is working in U.S.A and her minor child is studying there. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view that no infrastructure is available in the Court for cross examination through video conferencing, the Court below thought it fit that the petitioner’s presence in the Court is essential for the purpose of cross examination. Such discretion exercised by the Court on application of

¶16

mind to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

For the aforesaid reasons, the order under revision does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court.

¶18

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶19

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶20

Date: 13.08.2013 MVA

¶21

[1] AIR 2007 ANDHRA PRADESH 43

¶22

[2] AIR 2005 CALCUTTA 11(1)

¶23

[3] AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2053

Abisetti Asha Latha , K Asha Latha v. Abisetti Venkat Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abisetti Asha Latha , K Asha Latha v. Abisetti Venkat Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. T.P. Dharanija Vs Sri T. Surya Satish Goud

Sri T.Surya Satish Goud, Vs Smt.T.,P.Dharanija

Smt K. Rani Prasanna Vs P.Murthy

Shaik Massod Ali Vs Smt. Ahmedi Begum

Dr.C.Rabindranath, Vs Sridhar D.Magal

Ayesha Rizwana Vs Mushtaq Ahmed