SUNDEEP REDDY TIRUMALA REDDY Vs. DONDETI ANUSHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/husband, aggrieved by the order, dated 25.01.2019, passed in I.A.No.520 of 2018 in H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2016, by the learned Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner/husband, under Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking permission to record his evidence through video conference, was dismissed.

(2.) Heard the arguments of Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband, Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for the respondent/wife and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband would contend that the impugned order passed by the Court below is contrary to law and facts of the case. There is settled legal position that in the given circumstances, the subject interlocutory petition could have been allowed by the Court below, permitting the revision petitioner/husband to record his evidence through video conference/Skype technology. The Court below erroneously observed in the impugned order that it would not be possible for the Court to observe the demeanor of the witness, if the evidence is recorded through video conference. Skype technology is accurate, effective and there will be no error in recording the evidence as sought. The Court below ought to have allowed the subject interlocutory application. The revision petitioner/husband is residing in U.S.A. and working as a Senior Staff Software Engineer in Multi-National Company, i.e, Google. He applied leave for two weeks to appear before the Court below for the purpose of his cross-examination, but the same was declined by his employer, vide letters, dated 09.04.2018 and 19.04.2018, stating that he being the head, has to execute several critical short term and long term projects and that his daily appearance is necessary for the timely execution of the projects on hand. It is also contended that if the revision petitioner/husband reaches India to depose in the subject O.P, there is every possibility of his losing the employment in U.S.A. It is difficult for the revision petitioner/husband to appear before the Court below, in person, for his crossexamination. His evidence can be easily recorded through video conference/Skype technology and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for. In support of his contentions, learned counsel had relied upon the decision of this Court in Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri v. Sirangi Muralidhar Rao, 2017 AIR(Hyd) 88.