ORDER :

This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.23-05-2018 in I.A.No.625 of 2018 in F.C.O.P.Nos.892 of 2014 and 1557 of 2013 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Petitioner herein had filed F.C.O.P.No.892 of 2014 against respondent for dissolution of the marriage between them which took place on 15-02-2012 and for other reliefs.

3. Respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.1557 of 2013 before the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for restitution of conjugal rights against petitioner.

4. Both the matters have been clubbed together.

5. Petitioner is presently employed in United States of America for employment purpose along with a son born to the parties. Petitioner is represented by her father/G.P.A. Holder.

Petitioner’s plea in I.A.625 of 2018

6. She filed I.A.No.625 of 2018 giving the said reason and sought recording of evidence by video conference from her residence in the United States of America.

7. Earlier also, petitioner had made a request for recording of her evidence through video conference on the ground that she was staying in U.S.A. and contended that it was not possible for her to appear before the Family Court, Hyderabad on the several dates of adjournment, but the trial Court declined to give such permission.

8. Petitioner then questioned the same in C.R.P.Nos.6015 and 5319 of 2017.

9. This Court on 12-03-2018 held that since petitioner was coming down to India on 25-03-2018, and the O.Ps stand posted to 26-03-2018, and since she stated that she is ready to give evidence before the Family Court, Hyderabad as she will remain in India from 25-03-2018 for 21 days, the Family Court should complete the recording of her evidence within the period of her stay in India and an order to that effect was passed by this Court.

10. This fact was also mentioned by petitioner in I.A.No.625 of 2018 and it was mentioned in the said I.A. that she had filed evidence affidavit in both O.Ps., that the Court below directed her to file a comprehensive affidavit on 04-04-2018, that she filed it on 10-04-2018; that prior thereto, chief-examination affidavit was filed through her father as G.P.A. holder to receive documents filed by her, but due to some reason, it was returned twice and resubmitted by complying with the objections. She contended that though she requested the Court to record her cross-examination as she has to leave India on 15-04-2018, the Court below did not consider her request and posted the matter to 16-04-2018 for counter of respondent. She contended that respondent had filed an application for seizing her passport and to restrain her from traveling abroad and this shows the malafide intention of the respondent.

The Counter affidavit of the respondent

11. Counter-affidavit was filed by respondent opposing this application. He contended that the subject matter of O.Ps. relate to disputes between the parties and G.P.A. holder of petitioner cannot say things which have transpired between petitioner and respondent. He alleged that petitioner had abandoned the proceedings in the O.P. without leave or permission from the Court. He alleged that on account of the same, petitioner is not entitled to the relief of recording of evidence through video conference from her residence at U.S.A. and that is not the procedure in law to look into issues relating to matrimonial cases.

12. It is also alleged that comprehensive affidavit of petitioner in both the O.Ps. was filed by her only on 10-04-2018 and the petitioner left to U.S.A. on the very next day and willfully absented herself. He contended that it was impossible to conclude the evidence of petitioner in the short period available since chief-examination itself ran into 8 pages warranting comprehensive cross-examination. He alleged that petitioner feared cross-examination and left India immediately after filing of chief-examination affidavit and therefore no relief should be granted to her.

The order in I.A.No.