Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA
Madhuri Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Shashank Balooni – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and procedure for video conferencing (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. arguments over evidence procedures via video conferencing (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court’s findings and rules about video conferencing (Para 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 4. court's critique of lower court's procedures (Para 10) |
| 5. distribution of ruling and training directives (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal from order is filed by the appellant-wife against the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Family Court Judge, Dehradun in Matrimonial Original Suit No. 543 of 2021 Shashank Balooni vs. Smt. Madhuri Joshi whereby the application Paper No. 125C2 for recording her evidence by video-conference filed by the respondent/appellant was disposed of.
The appellant-wife filed an application Paper No. 125C2 as per Schedule 1 of the “ High Court of Uttarakhand Video Conferencing Rules -2020” (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2020”) but court directed the appellant-wife to remain present for her evidence in defence.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife would submit that the learned Additional Family Court Judge, Dehradun did not apply his judicial mind while disposing of her a
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 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 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 court affirmed the right of a plaintiff in custody to present evidence via video conferencing, emphasizing the importance of access to justice.
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 upheld the Family Court's decision to deny video conferencing for evidence recording, citing lack of legal provision and the petitioner's failure to appear in person.
Exceptional circumstances, such as permanent residency in a foreign country and visa restrictions, may warrant the use of advanced technology, such as video conferencing, for court proceedings.
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
