Allowed

Guda Lakshmi Lalithya v. S. Sandeep

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022CRP/1458/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a Civil Revision Petition filed against an order permitting video conference recording of evidence in a divorce case. The Court relaxed Rule 18 due to distance and constitutional difficulties, allowing the husband's Power of Attorney to sign the record while specifying procedural conditions for recording statements.

What did the court decide?

The rigours of Rule 18 were relaxed; GA holder permitted to sign record; petitioner to appear for statement; husband via video conference; respondent physically present.

Guda Lakshmi Lalithya Vs S. Sandeep — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NO: 1458 OF 2022

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 ol Constitution of lndia against the order dated 30-06-2022 in l.A. No. 412 ot 202O (2022 | in O.p.No. 1132 o12020 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Additional Family Court, at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Guda Lal<shmi Lalithya, W/o. S. Sandeep, D/o. Guda Gopala Krishna Rao, Aged 30 years, Occ. ..Household, R/o. Flat No.406, Temple View Residency^-Apts., Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. ...PET|T|ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

!^{Sqndeep, S/o. S. VenkateshwarRao, Aged 33 years, Occ. pvt. Service,No.} 249:3^19/1^{, FCI Colony, SubedariHanamkondb,Warangal District,presenilyresiding at} 262 HampsNre Dowls D,river, Morrisville, North Carolilna, Zip Code 27560, U.S:A., Rep. by his GPA holder, S. Venkateswar Rao. ...ReSpOruOf ruf

¶11

lA NO: 'f OF 2022

¶12

Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant exemption from application of rules as per the Notification No.3, dated. 29.10.2020.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P. RAJA SRIPATHI RAO

¶14

Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶17

_o-Rt)EIt

¶18

I Icar-d le:rrnccl r:ounscl Iilr peutioncr Sr.i l).lt:rju Sriparhi ltrL<r ancl Sri .\ I)rabl.rurliar Rao firr respondcnt. \,ith rhe conscnr of lear,ccl cr>irr-rscl tbr thc pcLiuu,r:1. as rvcll as 'cslr.nrienr. thc .iril Itcvision Peutron is disposed of at thc sragc oi adnrrssror.r. 2. 'fhis Civil ltevision petition is filecl tgainsr rhc orclc,r <iatccl 30-06-2022 passcci in I.,.No.412 oi 2021) (2022) in

¶19

O.P.No.1132 oi 2020 bv the -f uclge, .-\dcLtron:ri l,amilr. (_ourr, I{yderabad.

¶20

l)eculiar lactual sitr-ration rccluires consi<lerauorr oi a,pLicau.r'r of I{.lc l8.f 'lrr-rres tirr'-irico (-.nicrc,L:rng ibr (_.trrts in rhc Srate ot^'l clan{.ana, (thc Rules).

¶21

It appears that both husband and u.ifc har.c nou. coilscnte(l to p21rt_\.ays ancl appliccl for clrr.orcc bl conscnt. .l_ltc pctitioner is prcsently in India ancl rcsponclcnt is rcsijtng in L,S.. -l he petitioncr rvifc r'ras also planned to tra-el to united States of .\mcuca <rn rlre inrenerung night of 02.0;.2022 aod 03.07.2022. 'rhe case is at thc stage of rccorcrirg evidc,ce o[ r].rc hrrsband and

¶22

u,ifc. l'hc trial Court by order dated 3rJ.6.2022 il t,,,.No.412 of 2020 petmrttcd recording of eridr:ncc oi irusband frorr [Jnited Starcs oiAmerica, subjcct to compliarice of guidelines issucd by thc I lisir (lourr.

¶23

This revision is filed to seek relaxarion ,,rf the rigours r>f the Rulcs to record evidence of the husbadd through vidc<l conference. BotI counsel submit that due to Crhc diffcl ence of hdia atd USA, it is difficult ro secuic an official of Indien (.onsulate in rhe USA to act as Coordinator whereas both spouses wish to part wavs and lead their individual lives peacefi:lly as soolr as possible. Fur.rhr:r, lus u,ifc is going to ,\merica, it nray cause furthcr dclays in concluding the proceedings if statements are not r.ccordcil bef<rre she leavcs India. Therefore, both counsei request to rclax thc rigours o[ rccording evidence of husband in the presence of Coordinator in USA.

¶24

It is also representcd that thc husband is represented by the power of attorney and he rvill parricipate in Cor.ut proceeding; as authorisecl by' respondent-hrl5ll2nd. in suppr:rt of the claim on permissibility of Power of Attornev to represent the respondent, reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court.

¶25

¶26

As early as on 19.3.2012 in S.B.Tirumal Raj Vs Smr Lakshmi Prasannai learned single Judgc of this Court helcl that thcre is no requirement fbr the petiuoner being pcrsornlly present as Spccial Power of Attorney Holder of the petiuoner was pur-suing the casc and was presenr, for disposal of the joint application filed for divorce.

¶27

In Dasam Vijay Rama Rao vs M.Sai Sri, anorher learned Single Judge held that a General power of Attorney holder can depose and also lead evidence on behalf of his principal.

¶28

Thougl-r elaborate ruies were formulated on various aspects of recording evidence through Video Conference, Rule 1g3 vests power to relax the dgours of the Rules wherever it is difficult to enforce the Rules to deal wrth a particular situation.

¶29

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this Case having regard to rhe tjme difference between United Starcs of America and India and the difficulties expressed by the paraes to secure a Coordinator, this Court is of the opinion that case is made

¶30

| 2012 scc onLine AP 456

¶31

2 20 t5 SCC OnLine Hyd 205

¶32

'^Rule. 18. :The High Courr rnay if satisfied that the operation of any Rule is causing undue hardship, by an order dispense with or relax the requirements of thaiRule to such exient and subject to such conditions, as may be stipulated to deal with the case in a just and equitable manner.

¶33

¶34

our to relax the rigours o f Rule g of the Rules and permit the Cicneral Powcr of Attorney of husband to sip;l the ".d"ni. nn hi. behaif.

¶35

1.1. The petitioner shal appeat before the ,\dditional Famiry Court at Flvderabad torlotrow at 10.30 a.m. The Additional l,_anrlv (-ourt shall record her shtemenr. At the dme of recording the statement of the peutioner, t-he husband shall be present throush ./ideo Coirference. After recording the statement of petitioner the statement of respondent shali be recorded. At the time of recording statetleflt of respondent the petitioner and the Pow-er of Attornev of rcspondent shall be present physically in the Court.

¶36