[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Ajay Narasaiah vs Mrs Bhavana Srikanth on 27 March, 2026
-1-
WP No. 35461 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.35461 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MR. AJAY NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O. NARASAIAH CHILUKA &
SUNITHA CHILUKA,
RESIDING AT NO. 1375,
CLEVLAND HEIGHTS, BLVD,
APARTMENT NO.110,
CLEVLAND HEIGHTS, OH-44121,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MRS. BHAVANA SRIKANTH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O. AJAY NARASAIAH,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.404,
GERANIUM,SANKALP CENTRAL PARK,
YADAVAGIRI,MYSURU,
KARNATAKA - 570 020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THEREFORE, THE
PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HONBLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
30.10.2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XVII RULE
1 R/W. SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908, IN M.C. NO. 455/2024 BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE, MYSURU, BY ALLOWING
THIS WRIT PETITION, CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE
-2-
WP No. 35461 of 2025
PETITIONER TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN ALL
PROCEEDINGS THROUGH SECURE VIDEO CONFERENCING,
AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) OR GRANT SUCH RELIEF(S)
AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM JUST AND PROPER IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 06.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
The present petition is filed by the
petitioner/husband seeking to set aside the impugned
order dated 30.10.2025, allowing an application filed
under Order XVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, by
the husband seeking adjournment on a particular day, in
M.C.No.455/2024, pending on the file of the II Additional
Principal Family Court Judge, Mysuru ('the Family Court',
for short), imposing a condition that the petitioner should
appear before the Court in-person.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
-3-
WP No. 35461 of 2025
3. The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the
petitioner. The petitioner has filed M.C.No.455/2024
under Section 27(1) (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954,
seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent -
wife has filed a counter statement together with a counter
claim in M.C.No.455/2024, seeking a decree of divorce by
making false and baseless allegations. The case is
presently at the stage of the cross-examination of P.W.1.
The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and got marked
Exs.P.1 to P.8. His cross-examination was partly
conducted through video conferencing. The petitioner
contends that he is a citizen of the United States of
America and is unable to appear physically before the trial
Court owing to his employment obligations in abroad and
he has to look after his old aged parents, who are
suffering from ailments. He further submits that he has
been regularly participating in the proceedings through
virtual mode, in full compliance with the Video
Conferencing Rules, 2020 (for short 'the Rules'), without
-4-
WP No. 35461 of 2025
causing any delay or dragging the proceedings before the
Trial Court. He further submits that when the matter was
posted on 30.10.2025 for continuation of cross-
examination of P.W.1, the petitioner was unable to appear
through video conference as he was suffering from ill-
health / flu and was advised for five days bed rest. Hence,
he filed an application under Order XVII Rule 1 read with
Section 151 of CPC seeking adjournment for cross-
examination of P.W.1.
4. The trial Court has allowed the application of the
petitioner vide order dated 30.10.2025; adjourned the
matter and directed that the petitioner shall appear
physically before the Court on 02.12.2025. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the application though allowed, the direction of the trial
Court for physical appearance is contrary to the Video
Conferencing Rules, 2020 and therefore, he would
particularly rely upon Rules 5.3.1 and 18 of the Rules.
-5-
WP No. 35461 of 2025
Therefore, he seeks to modify that portion of the
impugned order, which is prejudicial to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the presence of the petitioner - husband is imperative and
therefore, entertaining the subject petition is uncalled for.
Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the petition.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal at the Rules, it is apposite to quote the
aforesaid provisions of the Video Conferencing Rules,
2020, to resolve the issue in the case at hand. Rule 5.1,
5.3.1 and Rule 18 of the Rules read as follows:
Rule 5.1 - Preparatory Arrangements
(Coordinator)
"There shall be a Coordinator both at the
Court Point and at the Remote Point from which
any Required Person is to be examined or heard.
However, Coordinator may be required at the
Remote Point only when a witness or a person
accused of an offence is to be examined."
Rule 5.3.1 -
Sub Where the The Remote Point
Rule Advocate or Coordinator shall
Required Person be:-
is at the following
-6-
WP No. 35461 of 2025
Remote Point:-
5.3.1 Overseas An official of an
Indian Consulate/
the relevant Indian
Embassy / the
relevant High
Commission of
India.
Rule 18 - Power to Relax
The High Court may if satisfied that the
operation of any Rule is causing undue hardship, by
an order dispense with or relax the requirements of
that Rule to such extent and subject to such
conditions, as may be stipulated to deal with the
case in a just and equitable manner.
8. In the light of the afore-quoted Rules, the issue
which arises for consideration is whether in the case at
hand, the rigour of Rule 5.1 and Rule 5.3.1 requires to be
strictly applied, or this Court under Rule 18 of the Rules
can grant relaxation for the effective participation of the
petitioner in the proceedings.
9. The issue in the case at hand is considered by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25691/2025,
-7-
WP No. 35461 of 2025
disposed on 22.09.2025, wherein, at paragraph Nos.10 to
15 has held as follows:
"10. In light of the unequivocal undertaking given by
the petitioner, this Court finds merit in her request. It is
not in dispute that the present prosecution is initiated at
the instance of the petitioner, arising out of allegations of
marital discord and domestic disputes between her and
respondent No.2. It is in this backdrop that a crime was
registered against the respondent-husband. Having
regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the
practical difficulty faced by the petitioner in availing
Embassy facilities owing to the mismatch of working
hours between the Embassy and Indian Courts, this Court
is of the opinion that both the examination-in-chief and
the cross-examination of the petitioner/complainant can
be permitted through video conferencing directly from her
residence in the United States, subject to the safeguards
imposed herein.
11. Rule 18 of the Video Conferencing Rules,
2020 confers a specific power upon the High Court to
relax the rigour of any of the Rules, where sufficient
cause is shown, and subject to the imposition of such
conditions as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and
circumstances of each case. The object of incorporating
Rule 18 is to ensure that the procedural framework laid
down in the Rules does not, in its strict application,
become an impediment to the effective dispensation of
justice. It recognizes that situations may arise where
insistence on literal compliance with the Rules would
cause undue hardship or prejudice to a party and,
-8-
WP No. 35461 of 2025
therefore, vests discretion in the High Court to relax such
procedural requirements.
12. In this backdrop, the contention advanced on
behalf of respondent No.2-husband that the petitioner
ought to have approached the learned Magistrate for
seeking relaxation of Rule 5.3.1 cannot be accepted. The
power to relax the operation of Rule 5.3.1 is not conferred
on the trial court, but is specifically vested in the High
Court under Rule 18. Consequently, the objection that the
petitioner has prematurely invoked the jurisdiction of this
Court, without first moving the trial court, is misconceived
and untenable. It is, therefore, within the domain of this
Court to consider whether the facts of the present case
warrant exercise of the power of relaxation under Rule 18,
so as to enable the petitioner/complainant to record her
evidence through video conferencing without being
constrained by the strict mandate of Rule 5.3.1.
13. In the present case, the petitioner, who is the
complainant/wife, has expressed her willingness to furnish
an undertaking before this Court to the effect that her
conduct during the course of cross-examination shall not,
in any manner, prejudice the rights of respondent No.2.
She has undertaken not to disconnect the proceedings
abruptly, and has further agreed that if such a
disconnection occurs due to her act, the entire evidence
tendered by her may be liable to be discarded. In view of
such an unequivocal undertaking, this Court is satisfied
that the apprehension raised by respondent No.2
regarding disruption during cross-examination stands
adequately addressed.
-9-
WP No. 35461 of 2025
14. Rule 5.1 of the Rules contemplates the presence of
a Coordinator at the remote point, where a witness or an
accused person is to be examined. The intent behind this
mandate is to ensure the authenticity of the process, to
avoid external influence, and to maintain the integrity of
the proceedings. However, in the case on hand, the
petitioner is neither an accused nor a formal witness
summoned by the prosecution; she is the complainant, at
whose instance the criminal law has been set in motion.
The proceedings are thus materially distinguishable from
situations envisaged under Rule 5.1. Strict adherence to
this requirement, in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, may not be warranted.
15. Further, Rule 5.3.1 requires that where the
deponent is situated outside the territory of India, the
recording of evidence must ordinarily be facilitated
through the Indian Embassy or Consulate. In the instant
case, the petitioner has demonstrated that due to
the difference in time zones and the non-availability of
Embassy facilities coinciding with Indian Court hours, she
is practically unable to avail such services. The insistence
on routing the process exclusively through the Embassy
would, therefore, cause undue hardship to the petitioner,
and may even result in derailing the trial process."
10. In the light of the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench and the only reason for seeking
adjournment on the particular day of cross-examination of
P.W.1 was on medical grounds, as the petitioner was
- 10 -
WP No. 35461 of 2025
suffering from illness, this Court invoking Rule 18 of the
Rules, deems it fit to relax the condition imposed by the
trial Court.
11. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed in M.C.No.455/2024 by the II Additional Principal Family Court Judge, Mysuru, stands modified.
iii) The petitioner/husband is permitted to conduct further cross-examination of P.W.1 through Video Conferencing and the rigour of Rule 5.1 read with Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 is relaxed to this extent.
iii) The petitioner/husband shall be made available for cross-examination through virtual
- 11 -
WP No. 35461 of 2025mode, which shall proceed uninterruptedly without causing prejudice to the respondent during the course of cross-examination.
v) The learned Magistrate shall permit the petitioner/husband to record further cross- examination on the dates so assigned.
vi) The learned Magistrate shall fix the dates and timings of such virtual recording of evidence, after duly notifying both parties in advance.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE MH/-