The woman had filed a case under Indian Penal Code sections dealing with cruelty and unnatural sex offences, as well as sections of the Information Technology Act. The police filed a chargesheet against her husband. She approached the high court seeking relaxation of rule 5.3.1 of Video Conferencing Rules in order to participate in the proceedings from overseas, since that rule mandates a remote point coordinator who is an embassy, consular, or high commission official.

The relaxation was sought as the embassy and consular facilities of India in the United States (where the woman resides) do not have working hours that coincide with those of courts in India. She therefore sought permission to depose from her home.

Her counsel argued that the rule ought not to be insisted on as she was not an accused but the complainant in the case. Apart from arguing that she should have approached the trial court instead of the high court, the husband’s counsel argued that there was an apprehension of disconnection during cross-examination, especially when crucial questions would be put to the woman, causing prejudice to his case.

The woman’s counsel argued against this worry, pointing out that half the examination had already been done smoothly via virtual means, adding that she was ready to give an undertaking that she would not disconnect during the deposition on pain of her evidence being disregarded.

Taking note of the undertaking, the court ruled in the woman’s favour, stating, “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.”