Allowed

Sri.Satyanarayana Challa ,Satish Challa v. Smt.Sumana Sai Desai

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023CRP/1011/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition concerning a divorce proceeding. The Court exercised its power to relax the rigours of Video Conference Rules, permitting the petitioner's General Power of Attorney holder to sign evidence statements and allowing the petitioner to record evidence from the USA via video conference without a physical coordinator due to time differences. The trial orde

What did the court decide?

The CPR is disposed of; the Family Court is directed to record evidence via video conference with the GPA holder signing statements, waiving the coordinator requirement.

Sri.Satyanarayana Challa ,Satish Challa Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

)

¶2

:,|'I , ,f, ,* .rl .-:l-i :11 t* i

..:

{ 1 i

;It

'ti' l:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶10

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWo rHousAND AND TWENTy iunee

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶13

CIVIL REVIS ION PETITION N O:1011 oF 2023

¶14

petition fired under Articre 227 0f constitution of rndia, against the Docket order dated 23 03 2023 passed I r,A \g oa "r^{irizJ"i. o.; N". 1605 0f 20220nthe fire of} rhe court of the tr Additionat ramirv corrt,z,-,y ;;;";n Hyderabad.

¶15

Between:

¶16

s?us11"'r?3i:i??1ff &is,::e,',sn; flT;1tr:dffi?-?::"f":fl mro**r'+:",+iil{+";ffi **flfrq-ffi

¶17

AND

¶18

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER NO.1/PETITIONER NO.1

¶19

ffi i#ilfl,"1,;:f^{?i;lii3,"&B?y3ffi :1f [Xf.yi,t1.,i,;up,1?,3:i"X?*}

¶20

{

¶21

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER NO.2/PETITIONER NO.2

¶22

IA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶23

Petition under section 1-51 of .cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fileo rn support of the oetit preased to srant "lrv ti'rrr rr.tn",'i.;;;;. ir1l1?l;r,Xl"irnir""B::_:i?...i"; dated 23-03-2023 in "o. fa1 as the obsefuatiol made to follow the video conference guidetines ,no,rutes inl.A i;;/rd;,in F.c.o.p.No .160st2022 on court or tne Hon ure'ri'aair^{"rlriiv"court} lirilff#'" Judse, city civir court,

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner : M/s. G. SINDHU

¶25

',:l

¶26

{

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M. VIJAYAKANTH

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

{

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^P.NAVEENRAO C.R.P.NO.10110F²⁰²³

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard learned counse^{I M} /^{s. G Sindhufor thc petitioner} and learncd counsel^{Sri M, Vijal'.rkanlh,for the respondent'}

¶34

O.P.No.16O5 oi 2022^{tvas filed before the learnedII} Additional Family^{Court, Citv Civil Court, Hyderabadfor divorce} by mutual conse ltt^{under Section 13-B of thc HinduMarriage} Acr, I955^{(for short 'thc Act. 1955'). The said O P is coming up} for recording ol^{tlie cvidence of petitionerNo.l The petitioner is} presently residing in California,^{U S.A., and expresses his} difficulry to travel^{lro India and to give evidence physically,} therefore, he lilcd^{I.A.No.68ol2023 inO.P No' 1605 ot 2022} seeking the leave^{of the Court to dispensewith the presence of} the co-ordinator lor^{recordingof the evidence as itwouldbe} difflcult for the^{petitioner tosecure the availability ofthe} co-ordinator and^{permit him to lcadthe evidence through Video} Conference or Skype or any^{other electroniccommunication} media from California, u/s^{65A and 658 of the Indian Evidence} AcL, 1872. Thc Court bclon vidt: ordcr datcd 23.03.2023^has allowed the said application, but ordered to follow the Rules for

'- l-lt

Video Conferencing for Courts in the Srate of Telalgana, (for short,^,thc Video Conference RulesJ for recording the evidence.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amcndments to the Video Conference Rules were not in force by the time the order was passed in I.A.No.6g of 2023 and therefore compliance of the order of the learned Family Court require the presence of a co_ordinator to record the evidence through video conference mode. He further submits that having regard to the time lapse betneen Jndia and thc California, U.S.A., it is difficult to secure the presence of a co-ordinator during the working hours of the Courts in India to record evidence and therefore grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as well as respondent, unless the same is exempted.

¶40

The Court is informed that both. spouses are in favour of early resolution of the dispute by taking divorce.

¶41

Sim ar issues have come up for consideration before this Court praying to lead evidence through video conference mode without the presence of a co_ordinator and appropriate amendments are made vesting discretion in the Family Courts/Trial Courts.

¶42

¶43

( (

¶44

Though elaboratc^{Rltles s'cre formulatedonvarrous} aspects^{ol rccordrng cviclctrc:t:throughvideo conferencemode,} Rule l8ivesLs^{po\'erLo rclax rhi: rigours of the Rules whercver} it is difficult^{to cnforcethe Rules to deal with a particular} situatron

¶45

In the instant^{case, the petitioneris representedby his} mother^{as GeneralPor'r'er o[ ALtorncyHolder'}

¶46

Having regarcl^{t'o the timcdiffcrencebetu'eenCalifornia'} u.s.A.. ancl lntlier^{and the r]ilficulty cxpressedby the petitioner} [o secure [he^{prescnr:c ol:tco-ordinator,this Court is of the} opinion that a casc^{ts madc out as per Rule 8 of the Rulesto} permit the GPA of lhe^{pctitiuner to sign the evidence on his} behalf.

¶47

g. The General Power of Altorney^{holderof the petitionerand} respondent shall appear before thc^{iearncdIl AdditionalFamily} Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on O3.05.2023 at^{10.30 A.M.} and at the same time, the petitioner shall appear through video conference mode Lo record his evidence. The petitioner shail be identified by the GPA Holder and the respondent. On such

¶48

,'Rut"^{t8:Thc llieh} aru., ,,,, ,. r'ri'x i; ii.x;.: ;ii;, [: : r l j li:r i; ; I : r irffi ]i d] I{i"j,'#ilx1,I a Just and equihble

I lr

)

appearancc and idcr_rtification, thc learned t.amrl.y Court shall record the evidence of the pctitioner and thercafter, the eviclerrce of the respondent shall be recorded. The petitioner shall appear through video conlerence mode as ancl when ordered by the learned Family Court.

¶54

10 With the above observations, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of

¶55

Misc<:1I:rneous petjtions, pending if any, shall stand

¶56

closed

¶57

To,

¶58

SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I C2E SECIION OFFICER

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

The ll Additional Family Court, CityCivil Court, Hyderabad

¶61

{:fl rB :.i

¶62

One CC to M/s. c. S|NDHU, Advocate IOPUCI

¶63

One CC to Sri M. V|JAYAKANTH, Advocate tOpUCI

'.1 :

+. Two CD Copies

NjbA/_-

fl i:i' :i

il ,:T ':.I

HIGH COURT

PNR,J

DATED:21 tO4t2O23

ORDER

<br>SlNTE 0r-
rr t\ N8 i tI
| ::, 'l
It
<br>' <br>--._. ' _:----
6<br>

¶76

CRP.No.1011 of 2023

¶77

D,SPOSING OFF THE C'VIL R
EVIS,ON PEI,T,ON.
r\
"L&
e

¶78

Sri.Satyanarayana Challa ,Satish Challa v. Smt.Sumana Sai Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Satyanarayana Challa ,Satish Challa v. Smt.Sumana Sai Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Surabhi Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt. Deepa Lalchandani

D. Madhavi Devi Vs S.K.Srinivasa Raju

Sri Shaik Nawaz Vs Mohd Aleem

Shaik Abdul Sattar Vs Mrs. Naseeb Khatoon

Pashikanti Rajendra Venkat, Vs NimmaMalla Reddy

Gottee Madhu Sudhan Vs Smt. G.RatnaKumari