ORDER

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.13 filed by the husband under Section 151 of CPC to confront the video contained in the CD to the respondent-wife which came to be dismissed by the Court, husband is before this Court.

2. Parties are referred to as wife and husband for the sake of convenience.

3. The husband has filed M.C.No.37/2018 seeking divorce. In that, he has marked Ex.P7(a)-CD and the said CD contains the photos, which are marked as exhibits. It is the case of the husband that the wife has admitted in her evidence that there is a video recorded and it is her personal video. The video is material evidence and it is to be proved. The said video has to be confronted to the respondent-wife to prove the case. If he is not permitted to confront the said video to the wife, he may be put to hardship and inconvenience.

4. The wife had filed objections stating that there is no mention of the CD in the main petition as to how the petitioner got it. Further, the husband has tried to bring the new theory during the cross-examination of the respondent-wife, though he has not demonstrated as to how the CD was opted. Further, the petitioner has to clarify that who are all the persons, who were present during the video and audio recording and particulars thereon. It is the case that there is no explanation either in the evidence of PW.1 or his sister with regard to the alleged CD. Hence, the respondent-wife had an opportunity to cross-examine the husband on the CD and if the application is allowed, the same would cause inconvenience to the wife. The application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the contents of the video in the form of CD are already marked as photographs. Ex.P8 is the DVD. The application is rightly objected by the other side stating that the particulars of the contents of the said DVD are not brought out during the evidence of either PW.1 or PW.2. It is observed that the said DVD was marked earlier, subject to objection. The arguments touching the admissibility of the said DVD are yet to be heard and the use of the said DVD during the cross-

examination of the respondent is not permissible. The Court has observed that the authority of the person who has videographed the contents of Ex.P8 and the persons involved in the alleged act of videograph are not speltout and it is very much necessary to play any CD or DVD in the open Court to come to a proper conclusion in the matter, nothing can prevent the Court from adopting such procedures and accordingly, the application was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the contents of the DVD-Ex.P8 is marked subject to objection and Ex.P7-CD contains the photograph has also been marked. He submits that considering the stand taken by the respondent-wife, it is necessary that the video be confronted with her to establish that she was in a relationship with some other person. The Court below without considering these aspects had dismissed the application. He further submits that it is very relevant for the stand taken in his petition seeking divorce.

6. Learned counsel for respondent-wife submits that there is no whisper about the videograph and now suddenly, the same is raised at the time of the cross-examination of the wife. The wife had lost an opportunity to cross-examine the husband and he cannot be permitted to come up with such a theory now.

7. Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. It is the case of the husband that the wife is having extra marital relationship with several persons. In support of that, he has already placed the CD containing the photographs before the Court and several photographs were marked with respect to the very same incident. According to the videograph submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ex.P8 is marked subject to objection because the same is pending consideration before the Court below, so at this sta