1 CAW.1458.11-WP.3631.11.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1458 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3631 OF 2011 Himanshu B. Kumar ...Applicant/Orig. Respondent Vs. Trupti Himanshu Kumar ...Respondent/Orig. Petitioner Ms. Seema Sarnaik, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Amogh Parlikar, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. : 1. In the above writ petition an order came to be passed on 22nd June 2011. Upon certain directions the writ petition came to be dismissed. The directions passed required the trial to proceed in Family Court, Pune. The petition in the Family Court, Pune is filed by the husband. It is for him to prosecute the petition. In the trial he would have to be cross examined first. If he must prosecute his petition he must appear for cross examination on the date specified by the learned trial Judge. 2. He claims that since he is employed in Dubai and has been residing there since prior to the marriage, his cross examination be recorded on Video-conferencing, a facility which is available in Pune Family Court. This facility is not available in all Courts. The Respondent upon inquiries states that it is not available in Pune Family Court. 2 CAW.1458.11-WP.3631.11.sxw Even if it is available, such a facility is not made available in any Court, including the High Court, for parties to record their cross examination thereupon. The facility is essentially made available for the accused in criminal cases. It would do away that malaise of having the accused produced in the Court on every date of remand. It is also made available to be used essentially for criminal trials when witnesses can be threatened, intimidated and otherwise approached. It would be used in murder cases, cases of sexual assault for victims etc. 3. A party who choses to file a petition in the Family Court whilst he is resident of Dubai cannot avail of the services to the exclusion of those in need for whom it is essentially provided. Of course, if a facility is in a Court which is otherwise not used, it can be used by parties also. 4. Even in civil litigation it would be essentially used for recording evidence of witnesses who are abroad so that the expenses for the witness to attend the Court and the consequent inconvenience would be minimised and witnesses who otherwise would not attend Court or who cannot be brought to Court under a summons of the Court would be available to give their evidence. 5. The facility being used by a Petitioner himself would prima facie tantamount to abuse unless it is made available and is lying idle for that purpose. 6. In this case the Petitioner must come to Court to have his cross 3 CAW.1458.11-WP.3631.11.sxw examination recorded. 7. The learned Judge is requested to give a fixed date. The husband shall attend on that date. The cross examination shall continue from day-to-day until it is finished. 8. The Civil Application is disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)