Devan Ramachandran , J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order, but concedes that all which is ordered therein is that her plea for adducing evidence through online platform shall be done as per the Kerala Electronic Video Linkage Rules (for short “Rules”).

2. Sri.S.Saju - appearing for the petitioner, submitted that her client is now incapacitated from offering evidence as per the “Rules” because, she is in a place in France, which will not permit her to act fully as per its ambit. He prayed that, therefore, this Court direct the learned Family Court to relax the “Rules” appropriately, so that his client can present their evidence.

3. We are afraid that we cannot intervene in this matter in the manner now requested by Sri.S.Saju since we find nothing in error in Ext.P5, it only directing the petitioner to tender evidence as per the “Rules”.

4. When the “Rules” are in force, no Court can say that such need not be followed; but, if there is any provision therein for relaxation, as has now been asserted by Sri.S.Saju, it is for the petitioner to move the learned Family Court itself appropriately.

5. With liberties, as available in law, being reserved, this Original Petition is dismissed.

A