MEENU BOBBY Vs. BOBBY SATHEESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, whereby, the requested opportunity of adducing evidence through Video Conferencing has been granted; but without making a provision for a Co-ordinator at the "Remote Point" of the witness, who is stated to be presently in Canada.

(2.) Sri.Alexander Joseph - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, as per Rule 5(4) of Ext.P12 - Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 ("Rules:" for short) framed by this Court, the Co-ordinator at the "Remote Point" must be an official of the Indian Embassy/Indian Consulate/High Commission, when it was situated oversees. He argued that, it is only in exceptional circumstances, if any genuine reason is to be shown, can the Court dispense with this; and he relied upon Rule 8(23) of the said Rules in substantiation. He pointed out that, however, in Ext.P10, no such reasons have even been whisperingly stated by the learned Court, while dispensing with the Co-ordinator at the "Remote Point"; and hence, prayed that Ext.P20 be set aside.

(3.) However, in response, Sri.M.Shyju - learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that this is a case where the exemption under Rule 8(23) of Ext.P12- "Rules" would come to play because, his client is in Canada and it is not possible for the Court to appoint a Coordinator in such circumstances. He thus prayed that Ext.P10 be left uninterdicted.