High Court Of Calcutta
AMITAVA LALA
AMITABH BAGCHI - Appellant
Versus
ENA BAGCHI - Respondent
C. O. 2312 Of 2003
Decided On : 02/16/2004
VIDEO CONFERENCING - EVIDENCE - SECTION 3 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 65-A AND 65-B OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - ORDER 18, RULE 4 (3) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - WITNESS EXAMINATION - Whether a witness can be examined through video conferencing in a matrimonial suit under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
Fact of the Case:
In a matrimonial suit filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the husband, residing in the United States, applied to the District Judge, Howrah, to examine him by way of video conferencing, citing the inconvenience and expenses of traveling to India. The District Judge dismissed the application on the ground that it would delay the proceedings, which were directed to be disposed of within two months by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court allowed the husband's application, holding that video conferencing is an advancement of science and technology that can be used to examine witnesses without compromising the principles of justice. The court relied on Supreme Court judgments and the amended provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, which allow for electronic records and video conferencing.
Issues: 1. Whether video conferencing can be used to examine a witness in a matrimonial suit under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 2. Whether the District Judge erred in dismissing the husband's application for video conferencing without considering the guidelines and safeguards for such examination?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines evidence to include statements made before the court by witnesses and documents produced for inspection. Video conferencing allows for the examination of witnesses remotely, which is a form of electronic evidence. 2. The Supreme Court has held that physical presence in court is not necessary for the purpose of adducing evidence and that video conferencing can be used to examine witnesses. 3. The amended provisions of the Evidence Act, including Sections 65-A and 65-B, provide for the admissibility of electronic records and video conferencing. 4. Order 18, Rule 4 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for the recording of evidence either in writing or mechanically in the presence of the judge or commissioner. This provision can be interpreted to include video conferencing as a mechanical process. 5. Video conferencing can be used to examine witnesses if certain guidelines and safeguards are followed, such as filing an affidavit or undertaking for identification, administering an oath through the media, recording the proceedings visually, and obtaining digital signatures.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the District Judge and directed that the husband's application for video conferencing be considered on merit and the matter be expedited within three months. The court also increased the interim alimony payable to the wife from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,500/- per month.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the District Judge at Howrah on 8th September, 2003 in the Miscellaneous Case No. 89 of 2001 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 487 of 2000.
( 2 ) THE fact reveals that the petitioner's husband instituted the aforesaid Matrimonial suit in the appropriate Court of District howrah because according to him marriage was solemnized therein under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thereafter, they shifted along with the parents of the petitioner to New Delhi and consequently to the United States of America. However, the opposite party/wife stayed there for sometime due to passport and/or clearance of visa etc. Thereafter she also went there and stayed at the matrimonial house at Chicago, United States of America. According to the petitioner, due to various reasons which will be reflected from the statements in the plaint as well as application, she herself left the matrimonial house and came back to India.
( 3 ) GOOD, bad, indifferent I do not want to go to the controversy in respect of the matrimonial relations because I have not been called upon to decide so. But the pious desire of the Court is that both the husband and the wife, for the sake of their child and/or their family members, should adjust in a manner with each other so that such type of disputes can be avoided. Unless and until it comes out from within themselves law cannot give protection very often as there is a well-known proverb that family law is no law. With my sincere expectation, now. I switch over myself to the real crux of the case. In the Matrimonial Suit an application was made by the opposite party under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the purpose of grant of alimony and litigation cost. Such application was disposed of by the District Judge, Howrah by an order dated 3rd May, 2003 by granting Rs. 10,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost with other incidental orders. A revisional application was made from such order in the High Court but in disposing of such revisional application being C. O. No. 1681 of 2003 dated 11th August, 2003 the Court was pleased to set aside such order in view of the fact that income of the husband was ascertained but question of expenditure was not ascertained by the Court below to come to a finding as to alimony at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. But in disposing of such revisional application Court below was directed to hear out the matter afresh on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties and the same should be disposed of within a period of two months from date of communication of the order without granting any unnecessary adjournment. Thereafter the petitioner's husband made an application before the Court below for examining him by way of video conference. According to him, he is permanently residing in United States of America and is an employee of a company at New York. In course of employment he has to remain at the place of posting. According to him, it would be extremely prejudicial to come to India and depose in the instant case. It will involve an unnecessary amount of delay, expenditure and inconvenience which in the facts and circumstances of the case, will be patently unreasonable and extremely harsh upon him. The attendance of the petitioner can be procured without delay, expenses and inconvenience if the Court allows him to be examined by way of video conferencing. There is no difficulty in examining him in that way because perjury, if any, is a punishable offence therein. His examination is utmost necessary and to avoid difficulties as mentioned above an order to Commission to record his examination by way of video conferencing can be granted.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon two effective judgments on that score. One is reported in AIR 2003 SC 2053 (State of Maha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.