siva kumar 26 November 2015

Divorce using skype

In a rare instance, a local court has granted divorce to a couple after hearing one of the petitioners over Skype. Senior Civil Judge of Khammam M. Venkata Ramana, based on a recent judgement of the Hyderabad High Court, used Skype to interact with the woman, who was in the U.S., before granting divorce. According to counsel for the woman, her client had requested the court to grant her divorce from Kiran Kumar. She has been staying in the U.S. for the past two years and could not attend the court hearing on Saturday. “First the Judge asked my client to identify her father and her husband (now ex-husband) through Skype. After she did, he asked the final opinion about the divorce which she said she wanted. Based on that, the judge granted the divorce,” the counsel told PTI. ‘Nullity of Marriage’ The couple was married in 2012 and soon after differences cropped up. The man filed a ‘Nullity of Marriage’ petition in the court while the woman had filed a plea petition under IPC Section 498 (A) (domestic violence). The woman then moved to the U.S. to pursue higher studies and later both the families came to an understanding. The couple filed for a divorce with mutual consent petition in the court, the counsel said. “She gave power of attorney to her father. However, in divorce cases, the court would like to hear both petitioners personally. As she is in U.S. and not able to attend the court, we filed a petition requesting the court to hear her version through Skype, to which the judge agreed. The judge used a laptop to interact with the petitioner. — PTI I have read this in hindu newspaper...Is this possible? I never heard it before.

Reply Follow

2 Replies

siddhartha sinha 26 November 2015

If ex miya ex bibi were raazi to kya krega kaazi?

SAINATH DEVALLA (LEGAL CONSULTANT) 27 November 2015

Mr Yentede Banta, try to add value to each of the discussion.Dear querist examination of the petitioner/respondent can be done on skype only in civil and divorce cases but not in criminal cases.

NRI allowed to oppose plea in India on Skype

The Calcutta high court recently permitted an NRI doctor based in the US to oppose a petition through video conferencing on Skype.

NEW DELHI: The Indian judicial system appears to be catching up with the West.

Broadening the scope of video conferencing in court cases, still very restricted in the country, the Calcutta high court recently permitted an NRI doctor based in the US to oppose a petition through video conferencing on Skype. Justice Aniruddha Bose allowed Dr Kunal Saha to give oral submissions through Skype and participate in live court hearings where two doctors from the state have challenged cancellation of their medical license by the Medical Council of India. Till now video conferencing as a tool has been primarily utilized for examination of witness or recording of evidence but not for allowing a litigant to argue his case.

The Calcutta HC's landmark decision came on Dr Saha's plea, where he urged the court to either fast-track the case to wrap up his arguments during the period he remains in India, or permit him to oppose the two doctors application from his base in Hillard in State of Ohio, US. HC deemed it fit to allow his plea for fighting the case through "live video conferencing", brushing aside objections by the West Bengal Medical Council that insisted Dr Saha be present in person to fight the case or not be heard at all.

Justice Bose pointed out there is no restriction on use of the facility under the laws, even if they don't clearly spell out under what circumstances it might be used. "The presence of Dr Saha would be through the computer screen and its audio system, visible and audible to all present in the courtroom when the system is activated. Thus the proceeding would take place in public view only, as per regular court proceeding," Justice Bose observed.

HC also rejected the argument by WBMC that the NRI would be outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court yet participate in the proceedings. "If the system can be followed for examining a witness, which the Legislature has prescribed, I don't see any prejudice being caused to any parties in adopting the same system for conducting the hearing which Legislature has not prohibited," HC said.