The court upheld the Family Court's decision to deny video evidence request based on the petitioner's legal obligations as an accused, allowing for future reconsideration upon valid justification.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the learned Family Court, Muvattupuzha, since it has rejected her application, namely I.A.No.12/2025 in O.P.No.33/2021, wherein she sought permission to adduce evidence through Video Conference. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Philip T.

Varghese, pointed out that his client is working abroad and is unable to appear before the Court physically; and that it is, therefore, that she moved the application seeking the afore prayer. He then made an alternative plea that if this Court is not inclined, then his client may be given six months' time to appear before the Court to give evidence, because she is otherwise not in a position to appear on account of her professional / employment commitments.

3. We have examined Ext.P6 and notice that the application filed by the petitioner in the Original Petition - which has also been filed by her seeking divorce against the respondent - is solely that she be allowed to adduce evidence through video conference. The learned Court has, however, disallowed her plea only because she is stated to be an accused in a case registered against her under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and is suspected to be evading processes therein. We cannot find the mentation of the learned Family Court to be in error because, if a person continues abroad without appearing before the Criminal Court in response to a charge against her, she certainly cannot be granted any further relief or indulgence by a court acting in equity.

4. That said, however, if the petitioner has a genuine reason for being unable to appear before the Court and is able to convince the learned Family Court appropriately, such an opportunity cannot, certainly, be denied to her; but we do not see that she has made any application for such purpose as of now.

5. Interestingly, it is the petitioner who filed the Original Petition and the learned Family Court is proceeding to consider the same without avoidable delay. One surely cannot see this to be in error, though the liberty of the petitioner to seek further time for the purpose of adducing evidence on account of genuine and compelling reasons – which, of course, is for the learned Court to be convinced of - is left open.

In the afore circumstances, with the afore liberty being left to the petitioner, we dismiss this Original Petition, finding Ext.P6 to be without error.

Sd/