This Civil Revision Petition, has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 24.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.457 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.35 of 2023 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Yellamanchili.

2. Heard Sri B.Abhay Siddanth Mootha, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

I. Facts :-

3. H.M.O.P. No.35 of 2023 was filed by the present petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent, represented by his power of attorney holder (father). In the said H.M.O.P., I.A. No.457 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner seeking permission to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge through video conferencing i.e., Zoom, WhatsApp or Skype, as he was unable to attend the Court in person for the purpose of reconciliation.

4. The petitioner is residing in Texas, USA. Due to the non-availability of leave, as his employer did not permit him to travel to India, he was unable to attend the Court proceedings personally and therefore requested permission to participate in the reconciliation proceedings through video conferencing in the matrimonial dispute.

5. The respondent/wife filed counter denying the material allegations and contended that the application was liable to be dismissed, as no bonafide reasons or sufficient cause had been shown to permit the petitioner to appear through virtual mode for reconciliation. She further contended that the petitioner ought to attend the reconciliation proceedings in person.

6. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petition. It, recorded that the petitioner’s General Power of Attorney holder was present and represented by counsel on 25.10.2024, on which date it was stated that the petitioner would come to India in April, 2025. On that basis, the learned Trial Court inferred that the petitioner was in a position to travel to India and, therefore, found no justification to permit his appearance through video conferencing, notwithstanding the fact that he did not ultimately come to India in April, 2025. The learned Trial Court was not inclined to grant permission to attend the proceedings through virtual mode. The learned Trial Court referred to the judgment of this Court in Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar vs. Nerella Akula Sowjanya¹ which was cited before it by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the husband was permitted to participate in the reconciliation proceedings through Skype technology, but did not permit observing that there was possibility for the petitioner to come to India.

II. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner :-

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submitted that in the era of technology, the refusal of the learned Trial Court to permit the petitioner to attend the proceedings through video conferencing is unsustainable, and the technology ought to be effectively utilized, particularly in the present case where the petitioner/husband is residing in Texas, USA, and owing to the nature of his employment and the difficulty in obtaining leave, he is unable to travel to India and attend the Court personally.

8. Learned counsel submitted that video conferencing is permissible and can be availed at any stage of the proceedings, including matrimonial proceedings, which are judicial in nature. According to him, such facility can be extended even at the stage of reconciliation. He placed reliance on the “Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts,2023” as applicable to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (in short, “the Rules,2023”), issued vide Roc. No.415/2020-CPS, dated 10.06.2023. He submitted that Rule 3(i) clearly provides that “Video conferencing facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings and proceedings conducted by the Court.” He submitted that the expression “Court” is defined under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules,2023 to mean “a physical Court and a virtual Court or a Tribunal.” He further referred