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