The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 1977 and were blessed with a child. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2004 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, against the petitioner, for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial of the O.P. commenced.

2. The petitioner is a resident of U.S.A. He filed I.A.No.340 of 2006 seeking permission of the trial Court for recording his evidence through the video conferencing. The respondent opposed the application. Through its order, dated 15-6-2006, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P.

3. Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is nothing in the Evidence Act or C.P.C., which prohibits the recording of evidence through the video conferencing and in fact, the recent amendments to the Evidence Act, are in the direction of permitting such a procedure. He places reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Honble Supreme Court and the High Courts of Karnataka and Calcutta.

4. Sri P. Vijaya Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the effort of the petitioner is t