Varsha Vijayakumar vs Arun Sajeev
2021 Latest Caselaw 21929 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                   &
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                      OP (FC) NO. 531 OF 2021
  IN I.A.NO.4/2021 IN OP 195/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA,
                                 KOLLAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

             VARSHA VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS
             D/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT VASANTHA VILASAM,
             ANAYADI, SOORANADU SOUTH, KUNNATHOOR,
             KOLLAM-690 522, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
             HOLDER, AISHA VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS,
             W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT VASANTHA VILASAM,
             ANAYADI, SOORANADU SOUTH, KUNNATHOOR,
             KOLLAM-690 522.

             BY ADVS.
             HARISH GOPINATH
             ARYA UNNIKRISHNAN



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

             ARUN SAJEEV, AGED 37 YEARS
             S/O.SAJEEV, OMANALAYAM, KARITHOTTU P.O.,
             ULLANNOOR MURI, KULANADA, KOZHENCHERRY,
             PATHANAMTHITTA-689 514.


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2021,     THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC) NO.531 OF 2021

                                    2


                          J U D G M E N T

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This original petition is filed against the

impugned order declining permission to the petitioner

for adducing evidence through video conferencing.

Petitioner herein is the respondent in O.P.No.195 of

2018. Petitioner is currently working in Dubai. Her

case is defended through her power of attorney holder-

mother. Since she could not come down to India, she

filed the petition as above.

2. The Family Court dismissed the petition

stating that no facility of video conferencing is

available in that Court.

3. We are of the view that the Family Court could

not have dismissed such an application for want of

facilities. If the Family Court has no facility, the

court ought to have sought the assistance of DLSA or

Principal District Judge. The Court should not have

dismissed such an application especially in the light OP (FC) NO.531 OF 2021

of new video conferencing rules notified by the High

Court. We therefore set aside the impugned order and

allow the application. The Family Court shall

facilitate examination of the petitioner herein online.

In the light of the observations, and taking note of

nature of order as above, we dispense with notice to

the respondent.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Sd/-

AS SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE OP (FC) NO.531 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 531/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN OP NO.195/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP NO.195/2018 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.4/2021 IN OP NO.195/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2021 IN IA NO.4/2021 IN OP NO.195/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2021 IN OP(FC) 368/2021 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.