Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA
Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby D/o Baby James – Appellant
Versus
Bobby Satheesan S/o Satheesan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to family court's order on video conferencing (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on necessity of co-ordinator for remote video testimony (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's observations on adherence to video linkage rules (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. original petition allowed; order set aside (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, whereby, the requested opportunity of adducing evidence through Video Conferencing has been granted; but without making a provision for a Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point” of the witness, who is stated to be presently in Canada.
2. Sri.Alexander Joseph – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, as per Rule 5(4) of Ext.P12 – Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (“Rules” for short) framed by this Court, the Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point” must be an official of the Indian Embassy/Indian Consulate/High Commission, when it was situated oversees. He argued that, it is only in exceptional circumstances, if any genuine reason is to be shown, can the Court dispense with this; and he relied upon Rule 8(23) of the said Rules in substantiation. He pointed out t
Adherence to procedural rules for video conferencing in legal proceedings is essential; exemptions must have sufficient justification as mandated by the established rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of responding to the call of social distancing and ensuring the sanctity of testimony through video conferencing, in line with the gu....
The Electronic Audio-Video Linkage Rules (Kerala), 2025 provide a framework for conducting judicial proceedings via electronic means, ensuring procedural integrity and confidentiality while facilitat....
The court upheld the right to record evidence via video conferencing for parties residing abroad, emphasizing adherence to the Video Conferencing Rules-2020 and the necessity for judicial considerati....
The court allowed the relaxation of video conferencing rules enabling a complainant abroad to record evidence, emphasizing the role of discretion to avoid undue hardship in legal proceedings.
The statement of an overseas witness can be recorded through video conferencing, as per the guidelines laid down by the court for the conduct of court proceedings between courts and remote sites.
The court affirmed that video conferencing for witness testimony must comply with both High Court rules and mutual legal assistance guidelines, ensuring the witness's identity is verified.
The court affirmed that cross-examination via video conferencing is permissible under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules, enhancing access to justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
