Karnataka High Court Relaxes Video Conferencing Rules Allowing Wife To Depose On VC From US Residence In Cruelty Case Against Husband

The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a wife to record her examination-in-chief and be cross-examined by her husband in a cruelty case, via video conferencing from her residence in the USA, by relaxing the provisions of the 2020 Video Conferencing Rules. 

For Context, Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 requires that where the deponent is situated outside the territory of India, the recording of evidence must ordinarily be facilitated through the Indian Embassy or Consulate.

Rule 5.1 of the Rules contemplates the presence of a Coordinator at the remote point, where a witness or an accused person is to be examined.

In doing so the court while relaxing the rules, dispensed with the recording of the woman's evidence through Indian Embassy or the High Commission of India.

The complainant wife has lodged a complaint against her husband under IPC Sections 498A(cruelty) and 377(Unnatural offences) read with Section 34, as well as under Sections 66E and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The husband of the petitioner is presently facing criminal prosecution.

The petitioner, who is presently residing in USA had approached the high court seeking relaxation of Rule 5.3.1 on the ground that due to the difference in time zones, the working hours of the Indian Embassy/Consulate do not coincide with the sittings and timelines of the Indian Courts.

Thus, she said that she is unable to avail the services of the Embassy to facilitate her participation in further proceedings. She prayed that the court exercise its discretion to relax the rigours of Rule 5.3.1 and permit her to depose by way of video conferencing from her residence in the United States.

The husband opposed the petition contending that she has not first moved the trial Court, where the matter is pending adjudication, but had approached the high court directly. Also, during the course of cross-examination, the video conferencing session may abruptly get disconnected, particularly at a stage when crucial questions are put to the complainant, which might otherwise elicit material admissions fatal to the prosecution case.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said:

“Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the practical difficulty faced by the petitioner in availing Embassy facilities owing to the mismatch of working hours between the Embassy and Indian Courts, this Court is of the opinion that both the examination-in-chief and the cross examination of the petitioner/complainant can be permitted through video conferencing directly from her residence in the United States, subject to the safeguards imposed herein.”

The court referred to Rule 18 which confers specific power upon the High Court to relax the rigour of any of the Rules, where sufficient cause is shown, and subject to the imposition of such conditions as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of each case.

The court rejected the submission of the husband that the petitioner should have approached the trial court before directly approaching the high court.

It further accepted the wife's statement that she would give an undertaking not to disconnect the proceedings abruptly, and has further agreed that if such a disconnection occurs due to her act, the entire evidence tendered by her may be liable to be discarded.

The court said, “In view of such an unequivocal undertaking, this Court is satisfied that the apprehension raised by respondent No.2 regarding disruption during cross-examination stands adequately addressed.”

It also observed that under Rule 5.1 where presence of a Coordinator at the remote point when a witness or an accused person is to be examined will not apply to the present case as the petitioner is neither an accused nor a formal witness summoned by the prosecution.

The court observed that she is the complainant, at whose instance the criminal law has been set in motion. 

Allowing the petition the court said “In the instant case, the petitioner has demonstrated that due to the difference in time zones and the non-availability of Embassy facilities coinciding with Indian Court hours, she is practically unable to avail such services. The insistence on routing the process exclusively through the Embassy would, therefore, cause undue hardship to the petitioner, and may even result in derailing the trial process.”

The court directed the petitioner to file an undertaking before the Magistrate that she shall not disconnect, disrupt, or abruptly terminate the video conferencing session during her cross-examination. 

It also clarified that in the event the petitioner acts in violation of the undertaking furnished, the Magistrate shall be at liberty to discard the entire evidence of the petitioner, in accordance with the terms of the undertaking.

Appearance: Advocate Saravana S for Petitioner.

HCGP Anup Kumar for R-1.

Advocate Sanjay Sugumaran for R-2.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 378

Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 25691 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order