IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946 OP (FC) NO. 9 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2024 IN I.A.NO.3/2024 IN OP NO.

NO.3773 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

MEENU BOBBY @ MEENU BABY AGED 37 YEARS D/O BABY JAMES, NOW RESIDING AT PALAYIKKUDIYIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.28A , PARAVOOR THARA, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513 BY ADVS.

ALEXANDER JOSEPH AKHILASREE BHASKARAN ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO AJITH SUNNY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS:

1 BOBBY SATHEESAN AGED 37 YEARS S/O SATHEESAN, GRACE VILLA, ARA III, AMBATTUKAVU, THAIKKATTUKARAP.O ,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM ,PIN-683106 DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, GRACY SATHEESAN, W/O SATHEESAN, AGED 66 YEARS, GRACE VILLA, ARA III, AMBATTUKAVU, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, ALUVA , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683106, PIN - 683106

2 THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 BY ADVS.

M.SHYJU MINI GOPINATH THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)

The only factual controversy in this case is that the 1^st respondent - witness, who is in Canada, is stated to be unable to appear before the Remote Coordinator as per the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (‘Rules’ for short), on account of the time difference between the two countries.

2. We notice from the impugned order that though the learned Family Court allowed the 1^st respondent to depose through video conferencing, it then has held that it will not be practically possible for him to reach the Consulate because of the time difference and thus permitted him to do so using his portable device. What the learned Court has found – without error and correctly – is that it will be night time in Canada when the court hours in India proceeds; and therefore, it may not be possible for the Coordinator at the statutorily designated Remote Point to be of assistance.

3. However, the petitioner assails the order of the learned Family Court, arguing that if the deposition of the 1^st respondent is permitted to be recorded without being at the designated Remote Point, in the presence of the Co-ordinator, it will be vitiated and contrary to the “Rules”.

4. Since the sole issue involved in this case is as afore, we directed Smt.Mini Gopinath – learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the 3^rd respondent, to obtain specific instructions, of which directions are available in the order issued on 20.01.2025, to the following effect:

Read order dated 13.01.2025.

2. Smt.Mini Gopinath – learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that the Consulate Authorities are willing to act as per any order of this Court, including as the Remote Point Coordinator for the video conferencing. She, however, submitted that her client requires some details from the petitioner.

3. As we have indicated in our earlier order, what we are concerned about is the time difference in these zones. Therefore, Smt.Mini Gopinath will have to clarify that this will not be an impediment in the video conferencing.

4. Smt.Mini Gopinath sought one more day’s time to clarify this.

List, therefore, on 22.01.2025.

5. Smt.Mini Gopinath today informed us that, if the evidence is ordered to be taken at 10 AM Indian Standard Time (IST), it would be 8.30 PM the prior day in Canada; and that this is practically possible. She explained that, if the witness is to reach the Consulate office in Vancouver (which is the nearest, going by his address furnished before this Court), it will be possible to conduct the video Conferencing as per the “Rules”, provided all other requisites, including the honorarium and expenses are honoured.

6. The learne