1. The revision petitioner, who is the unsuccessful respondent-wife in I.A. No.826 of 2015, impugning legality and correctness of the order dated 18.12.2015, allowing examination on ‘Skype’ technology for recording evidence in the divorce petition of the petitioner-husband in O.P. No.59 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, filed the revision.

2. Coming to the relevant facts, in the divorce petition, after filing chief affidavit and when the matter was coming for cross-examination, the petitioner-husband at USA filed the petition before the trial Court to permit his examination including marking of documents on ‘Skype’ technology at his expense, in open Court or through Advocate-commissioner, on the ground that he is unable to get leave to attend the Court due to most urgent works of his project at USA.

3. The respondent-revision petitioner in opposing the same contended before the lower court on one among other that only in-order to-avoid facing the criminal case filed against him, the petitioner adopted said procedure for recording his evidence and there is every possibility to prompt or alert him to give a different answer and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. As the trial Court after hearing both sides allowed the petition, present revision is filed against it as referred supra.

5. In the revision it is the contention, in support of the grounds by the learned senior counsel for revision petitioner, that the Court below committed error in allowing the petition, instead of dismissing by accepting the contentions of the cross-examination of a witness cannot be allowed to be done by using ‘Skype Technology’ since the demeanor of the witness cannot be properly observed, identity of the party giving answers is difficult to fix, there is every possibility to prompt or alert him to give a different answer if the technology is used by screening the prompter from visibility, that a party cannot have the luxury of avoiding Court by keeping himself busy and conduct the trial of the case by taking advantage of Skype technology by appointing a G.P.A; besides same is a device to avoid facing the criminal case allegedly filed against him and it defeats the very object of efforts for conciliation without presence and prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order.

6. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for revision respondent-husband, while supporting the order of the lower court that placed reliance on a similar expression of this court, that same is a reasoned one and no way requires interference, any reconciliation if at all can be done by same technology, that demeanor of the witness can be properly observed including identity of the person giving answers and there is no possibility to prompt or alert to give a different answer from use of the technology by observing closely the demeanor of witness with no possibility of any others prompting, there is no any basis even to say same is a device to avoid facing the criminal case allegedly filed against him, that none of the provisions of law, muchless Sections 65A and B of the Indian Evidence Act prohibit such an e-recoding of evidence, that law is fairly settled for availing of the technological advancements and thereby sought for dismissal of the revision.

7. Heard both sides with reference to the provisions and propositions and perused the material on record.

8. The facts no way require repetition, in answering the rival contentions, to decide correctness of the order of the lower court and further as to recording of evidence through Skype or Dash or other technological device can be permitted and if so with what precautions and whether the case facts otherwise are impermissible even technology permits with taking care of precautions.

9. Before dealing with the issue as a necessary background, it is to mention the need to avail technological innovations with necessary safeguards and precautions in the justice delivery sys