- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39396 WP No. 11257 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 11257 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR. SHARUN ANTONY PAIS, S/O. SEBESTIAN SIMAN PAIS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.2-79 SHALEPADAV, MOODSHEDDE, MANGALURU TALUK – 574128. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GPA HOLDER MRS. PAULINE PAIS W/O. SEBASTIAN SIMON PIAS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.2-79, SHALEPADAV, MOODSHEDDE, MANGALURU TALUK – 574128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39396 WP No. 11257 of 2024 AND: MRS. SONIA PREMA D’ SOUZA, W/O. SHARUN ANTONY PAIS, D/O. GABRIEL D SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.23-107/4, D’SOUZA COMPOUND, NEAR SILVERGATE, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU TALUK - 575 005. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MANGALORE IN M.C.NO.122/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A ON I.A.NO.10 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39396 WP No. 11257 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.10 in M.C.No.122/2023 dated 13.03.2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, whereby the Family Court had dismissed the application that is filed by the husband seeking permission to record his evidence through video conference, the husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case that the husband through the GPA holder that is his mother has filed this application stating that the son is working in Sharjah and the matter is posted for evidence, recently he got a job with meager salary, he had sought leave from his employer but the same has been denied, therefore, he is unable to attend personally to the court to give evidence. Hence, through video conferencing he may be permitted to lead his evidence. Respondent/wife has filed her objections in which it is contended that the husband after taking several adjournments, when the matter is posted finally for his evidence, has come up with the present application - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39396 WP No. 11257 of 2024 which is nothing but delay tactics. It is further stated that the application is not in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka with regard to video conferencing. It is also stated that for the purpose of cross examination personal presence of the husband is very much required as the wife cannot confront the documents and cannot conduct effective cross examination through video conferencing. Even the court will not be in a position to observe the demeanor of the witness if the evidence is recorded through video conferencing. 4. The Family court by order impugned had rejected the application by referring several judgments and had observed that only during the pandemic situation, as under exceptional circumstances, full bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court permitted to conduct matrimonial dispute through video conferencing. The Family Court had referred the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santhini Vs. Vijay Venkatesh1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that in the normal course it would not have directed to use the video conferencing in respect of the matrimonial matters. It is further 1 (2018) 1 SCC 62 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39396 WP No. 11257 of 2024 observed that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarvesh Mathur Vs. The Registrar General High Court of Punjab and Haryana2 had observed that in general expressed its view that all the courts should utilize the modern technology for speedy and effective disposal of the matter. But the Full bench of the High Court had held that normally in the matrimonial disputes the video conferencing facility cannot be used without the consent of the opponent. Hence, the husband had not made out a ground for permitting him to adduce the evidence through video conferencing. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ husband had reiterated the arguments as submitted before the Family Court and submits that the petitioner may be permitted to lead the evidence through video conferencing. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the Family Court had rightly rejected the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. 22023 LiveLaw (SC) 871 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39396 WP No. 11257 of 2024 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. No doubt all the Courts are encouraging the parties to utilize the modern technology in the court proceedings. Generally the prime witnesses appear before the Court in person, it would be easy for the Courts to observe the demeanor of the witness while recording the evidence. This Court in several cases has already passed the orders observing that the rules that are made for video conferencing are at the time of pandemic and in cases where the parties are living outside the country, the officer from the Consulate shall be present which is practically not possible in all the cases and further, the countries in which they are residing even the time constraint also will be there. Unless and until those rules are amended it is not possible for the Court to record the evidence through video conference, particularly in the matrimonial cases where the parties are coming up with allegations on one another and voluminous documents are being filed. It is difficult for the Court to record the evidence through video conferencing. In these circumstances, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39396 WP No. 11257 of 2024 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 146