1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. By this Writ Petition, the jurisdiction of this Court in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked by challenging the order dated 7th March, 2014 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court No. 5, Pune. The respondent/husband has filed the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of restitution of conjugal rights on 3rd November, 2008. The petitioner/wife in her written statement cum counter claim demanded divorce. A minor daughter Rujula was born out of the wedlock. The petitioner/wife has been working in USA since 18th June, 2011 and daughter who is 5½ years old stays with her mother. The evidence of the husband is recorded by the Family Court. Now, the petitioner/wife has to lead her evidence, for that purpose, an Application is filed by her for recording her evidence through video conferencing and also for the appointment of Court Commissioner for recording the cross-examination of the petitioner/wife through video conferencing. The said Application Exhibit 83 was rejected by the Family Court Judge. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge is erroneous and illegal. He submitted that the learned Judge was not correct in holding that the petitioner/wife is required to travel India for recording of evidence. The learned Judge has committed error in appreciating the Application on the ground that for recording evidence, the Court atmosphere should be available otherwise the witness may not give answers instantly and there is no scope to observe her demeanour. He submitted that the petitioner/wife is serving in U.S. and looking after minor daughter, so it is not convenient for her to come to India. He submitted that her application be allowed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:

(i) Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B. Desai, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2053.

(ii) Judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Amitabh Bagchi vs. Ena Bagchi, reported in AIR 2005 Calcutta 11.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the Application and supported the order of the trial Judge. He submitted that the Court will be deprived of an opportunity to observe demeanour of the witness which is necessary to arrive at correct conclusion. He submitted that physical appearance of a witness is necessary for the smooth going of the trial. There is no special circumstance that the Application of the petitioner for recording of evidence through video conferencing was to be allowed. He further submitted that the family of the petitioner resides in Pune. The reasons given by the petitioner/wife that it is expensive to travel is not acceptable, as she is drawing good salary in US. Therefore, adjudication of the matter and evaluation of the evidence is possible if the parties are present physically before the Court.

5. At the outset there is a substance in the Writ Petition. The petitioner/wife has moved an Application for recording of evidence through video conferencing because she is working in U.S. She has a minor daughter aged about 6 years and stays with her. It is a different and distant country. Travelling to and fro from U.S. to India is undoubtedly financially expensive so also it is difficult for a mother of 6 years old girl to arrange the logistics. Though in the Application only financial difficulty and inconvenience is mentioned, it is necessary to understand what kind of inconvenience a mother of 6 years old child can face if she has to travel from U.S. To India to give evidence. Moreover she is a working lady and may face difficulty in getting leave and may be some hurdles in VISA. Hence, the Application for video conferencing is justified on all counts.

6. The learned Judge of the Family Co