The main legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of recording evidence through video conferencing, satisfying the requirement of being recorded 'in the presence' of the accused, as interpreted in (2003) 4 SCC 601. The judgment also emphasized the use of electronic media for recording evidence and the application of the suppression of mischief rule in statutory interpretation.

1. The present revision is directed against the order of the learned Principal Family Judge at Chennai dated 06.01.2011 made in I.A.No.3040 of 2010 in FCOP No.569 of 2004.

2. The respondent in this revision, who is the wife of the petitioner has filed the said O.P for dissolution of marriage that took place between them on 17.04.2002. In the said O.P, the petitioner has taken out an application in I.A.No.3040 of 2010 seeking permission to lead the evidence through Video Conferencing in the O.P as well as in the Interlocutory Applications. The said application was dismissed by the Court referred to above and the present revision is directed against the said order.

3. The reason for filing the said application as put forth in the affidavit in nut shell are stated here under:

He is a permanent resident in U.S.A and he is unable to come and lead evidence in person in view of his pre-occupation in his career. He is not able to conduct the trial personally because he is unable to get leave from his employer. The terms and conditions of his work are very severe because of the recession prevalent in the U.S.A. Though, he was at Chennai, in view of the various proceedings by the respondent herein, he was unable to get on with the matter. For effective adjudication of the matter, he has to be permitted to lead evidence through video conferencing.

4. The said application was opposed by the respondent herein. It is stated that in order to effectively cross-examine the petitioner, his personal appearance is necessary. She may have to mark certain documents through him and the same cannot be done through video conferencing.

5. The learned Judge of the Principal Family Court at Chennai considering the rival submissions, dismissed the application on the ground that number of documents are to be marked in the O.P on the side of the respondent herein and that parties have to be examined in detail with reference to the documents. The presence of the parties in court during enquiry in the main O.P will enable this Court to record evidence without any difficulty.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that evidence can be recorded through video conferencing. The petitioner is employed in U.S.A and it would be difficult for him to get leave therein and hence he is unable to appear in person before the Family Court. Therefore, he has to necessarily file an application to lead evidence through video conferencing. In support of the case, she relied on the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 601, State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent has filed number of documents and unless otherwise the petitioner appears before the Court to lead evidence and available for cross examination, an effective cross examination cannot be carried out. Through video conferencing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner cannot be cross-examined.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

10.1. As stated already, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in (2003) 4 SCC 601, State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai and contended that when a request is made by a party for examining him through video conferencing, the same shall be permitted. On a specific question raised by this Court, whether the said permission shall be granted automatically without any discretion of the Court, the learned counsel emphasized that discretion does not lie in a Court when such request was made and it shall be granted.

10.2. The phrase "Presence of the Accused" as provided under Section 273 of Cr.P.C came in for consideration before