SUVARNA RAHUL MUSALE Vs. RAHUL PRABHAKAR MUSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

(2.) By this Writ Petition, the jurisdiction of this Court in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked by challenging the order dated 7th March, 2014 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court No. 5, Pune. The respondent/husband has filed the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of restitution of conjugal rights on 3rd November, 2008 . The petitioner/wife in her written statement cum counter claim demanded divorce. A minor daughter Rujula was born out of the wedlock. The petitioner/wife has been working in USA since 18th June, 2011 and daughter who is 5 1/2 years old stays with her mother. The evidence of the husband is recorded by the Family Court. Now, the petitioner/wife has to lead her evidence, for that purpose, an Application is filed by her for recording her evidence through video conferencing and also for the appointment of Court Commissioner for recording the crossexamination of the petitioner/wife through video conferencing. The said Application Exhibit 83 was rejected by the Family Court Judge. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge is erroneous and illegal. He submitted that the learned Judge was not correct in holding that the petitioner/wife is required to travel India for recording of evidence. The learned Judge has committed error in appreciating the Application on the ground that for recording evidence, the Court atmosphere should be available otherwise the witness may not give answers instantly and there is no scope to observe her demeanour. He submitted that the petitioner/wife is serving in U.S. and looking after minor daughter, so it is not convenient for her to come to India. He submitted that her application be allowed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments: