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