Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a husband (dentist) and wife (physiotherapist) who had two minor children. After withdrawing their consent to a mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B, the husband filed an application for custody of the children, being Civil Miscellaneous Application No.8 of 2024. During the pendency of that custody proceeding, the wife filed an application (Exh.94) seeking permission to adduce as evidence a pendrive containing the live streaming of proceedings of the High Court in another special civil application, which she had downloaded from YouTube along with a cash memo from a digital studio. Realizing that adducing such recording was prohibited under the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021, she immediately made an endorsement seeking permission to withdraw the application, stating it was filed by mistake. The Family Court, however, rejected the application, imposed a cost of Rs.20,000, and directed that the matter be referred to the High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the wife. Subsequently, on another application (Exh.108) for quashing of the costs, the cost was reduced to Rs.11,000. The wife then filed the present special civil application challenging only the cost part of the order. Before the High Court, the petitioner-wife's counsel argued that she was unaware of the Rules prohibiting use of live streaming recordings as evidence, had acted under wrong advice, and being a mother of two children, the error was inadvertent; she had immediately sought withdrawal, yet the court imposed heavy costs. The respondent-husband opposed the petition, contending that the wife had a habit of filing such applications, as evidenced by an earlier demand for CCTV footage of the Family Court for which costs of Rs.2,000 had been imposed, and that the Family Court was justified in imposing costs to deter misconduct. The High Court, after examining the record, noted the background of a prolonged custody battle, the psychological distress and emotional trauma suffered by parents in such litigation, and the fact that the wife, upon realizing the mistake, had promptly sought withdrawal. The Court observed that the Family Court should have looked at the entirety of the circumstances rather than treating the incident in isolation, and that in child custody cases where parties are under stress, a lenient view is warranted. It held that instead of imposing costs, the learned Family Court could have permitted the petitioner to withdraw the application. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order insofar as it imposed costs on the wife.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Child Custody - Costs - Family Courts Act, 1984; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Family Court dismissed an application seeking to adduce a pendrive containing live streaming of High Court proceedings as evidence and imposed costs of Rs.20,000/- (reduced to Rs.11,000/-) despite the petitioner-wife's immediate withdrawal request. Held that in child custody battles, the court should consider the emotional distress of the parties and that the wife's mistake, being due to lack of awareness, should not attract such costs, especially when she promptly sought to withdraw. The High Court set aside the cost order. (Paras 5-7) B) Evidence - Admissibility - Live Streaming Recordings - Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021 - The petitioner sought to produce a pendrive of a High Court live streaming, which is prohibited under the said Rules. The trial court rejected the application, imposing costs and referring the matter for contempt. Held that although the attempt was impermissible, the petitioner's immediate retraction and lack of awareness warranted a lenient view, and the cost order was set aside. (Paras 3, 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court's order imposing costs on the petitioner-wife for attempting to adduce a recording of High Court proceedings, followed by immediate withdrawal, was justified?
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order qua imposing cost is set aside.
Law Points
- Live streaming of court proceedings is not permissible as evidence under the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules
- 2021
- but inadvertent attempt to adduce it
- followed by immediate withdrawal
- should not attract costs in child custody matters where parties suffer psychological distress
