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 guidelines and Model Video Conferencing Rules.

JUDGMENT :

LISA GILL, J.

1. This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to the outbreak of pandemic, COVID-19.

2. Prayer in this revision petition is for setting aside order dated 03.02.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, Family Court, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC, seeking physical appearance of witnesses sought to be examined by the respondent-husband in his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Mariage Act and not proceeding with examination of the petitioner’s witnesses through video conferencing, has been dismissed. Certified copy of the order dated 03.02.2021 was furnished in Court on 23.04.2021 as the same was not available with the petitioner at the time of filing of this petition. Same is taken on record, subject to just exceptions.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2019 at Secunderabad Courts. Present petitioner sought transfer of the proceedings from the Family Court at Secunderabad to Jammu as she was stated to be residing at Jammu along with her parents and minor child. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.09.2019 in Writ Petition(C) No.276 of 2019, transferred the proceedings from Family Court at City Civil Court at Secunderabad to the District Judge at Chandigarh. Family Court at Chandigarh was further directed to decide the matter within a period of six months. The period of six months came to an end on 20.03.2020. However, due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19, proceedings could not take place. An extension was ultimately afforded to conclude the proceedings till 30.06.2021.

4. The matter was taken up by the learned Family Court, Chandigarh on 28.10.2020 and affidavit of respondent’s father was filed in evidence. Presence of present petitioner’s counsel was duly marked and matter adjourned for cross examination of the said witness through video conferencing. Petitioner filed an application dated 10.11.2020, Annexure P-4, seeking cross examination of witness through physical mode besides consideration of her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner’s prayer for cross examination of the witness through physical mode was dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.02.2021 and her application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was disposed of vide a separate order, which is not the subject matter of this petition.

5. It has been averred in the revision petition that impugned order dated 03.02.2021 is unjustified as the petitioner never gave her consent for examination of witness of the respondent-husband through video conferencing and that proper cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent-husband could not be conducted through video conferencing. However, keeping in view the unprecedented conditions created due to the outbreak of pandemic, COVID-19 and its second surge wherein stringent travel restrictions have come into place, it has been fairly stated on behalf of petitioner that it will not be possible for examination of remaining witness of the petitioner-husband on actual physical appearance. It is informed that one of the witnesses i.e. father-in-law of the petitioner, who is a resident of Hyderabad stands examined and the only other witness of the respondent i.e. the petitioner’s husband is yet to be examined. Respondent-husband is admittedly residing in Singapore. It is submitted that in view of the peculiar circumstances, which have emerged and are admittedly beyond the control of the parties, examination of the respondent-husband may be carried out through the process of video conferencing but while ensuring meticulous compliance of the Model Rules for video conferencing promulgated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to ensure and maintain the sanctity of the testimony to be recorded.

6. Learned senior counsel for the respondent, in an equally fair stance does not