Karnataka HC Relaxes Video Conferencing Rules for Widow to Depose from USA in Probate Case [Read Order]

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has permitted a 71-year-old widow, pursuing a probate petition in Bengaluru, to record her examination-in-chief by video conference from her residence in the United States, without routing the proceedings through the Indian Embassy or Consulate as otherwise required under the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts.

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Rekha Gupta, seeking a direction to the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, to expeditiously dispose of an interlocutory application for recording her evidence through video conference, and to relax Rule 5.3.1 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts (Notification HCC No.18/2020 dated 09.06.2020).

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Girish Kumar Gupta, who left behind a Will dated 06.05.2024 bequeathing his entire movable and immovable property to her and naming her as the sole executrix. Following her husband's death, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking probate, which was registered as P&SC No.11 of 2025 before the Trial Court.

According to the petitioner, after her husband's demise she relocated to the United States to live with her son, given her age and the absence of relatives in India who could provide familial support. She is stated to be a green card holder, which places restrictions on her travel. In view of these circumstances, she filed I.A.No.4 dated 19.12.2025 under Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to record her evidence by video conference from the United States, along with I.A.No.3 under Section 151 of the Code seeking permission to depose through video conferencing.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that despite these applications being on record since December 2025 and extensive arguments having been advanced, the Trial Court had not decided them, and the matter had been adjourned for recording her evidence for over a year. It was submitted that the resulting delay was causing prejudice to the petitioner, a senior citizen, in enjoying the fruits of the property bequeathed to her.

Counsel further relied on Rules 5.1, 5.3.1 and 18 of the Video Conferencing Rules, and submitted that since the probate proceedings before the Trial Court were non-adversarial in nature, the rigour of the Rules could be relaxed. Reliance was placed on a decision of a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Richa Mishra Vs. the State of Karnataka and another, NC:2025:KHC:38100, which had laid down guidelines for the applicability of the Video Conferencing Rules and held that the power to relax any Rule, particularly where the deponent is outside the country, vests solely with the High Court.

The court noted that despite public notices published in "Kannada Prabha" and "Indian Express", no objections had been raised to the Will, and the probate petition remained uncontested. Since the proceedings before the Trial Court were uncontested and the public notice had evoked no response, the court held that it was appropriate to relax Rule 5.3.1 in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 18 of the Video Conferencing Rules.

"The High Court may if satisfied that the operation of any Rule is causing undue hardship, by an order dispense with or relax the requirements of that Rule to such extent and subject to such conditions, as may be stipulated to deal with the case in a just and equitable manner."

The court accordingly permitted the petitioner to record her evidence from her residence in the United States without the involvement of a Coordinator at the remote point or the routing of proceedings through the Indian Embassy, subject to certain safeguards: the petitioner would have to file an undertaking before the Trial Court that she would not disconnect or permit any obstruction during the recording of her evidence; any disconnection attributable to her would result in her evidence being discarded in its entirety; and the Trial Court would remain at liberty to impose any additional safeguards necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.

The court further directed the Trial Court to decide the probate petition expeditiously, and preferably within three months, noting that the matter had remained pending and uncontested for over a year.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of, with all pending applications closed.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Sri Sameer Sharma, Advocate.

Case Title: Mrs. Rekha Gupta, W.P.No.12610 of 2026 (GM-CPC).

[Read Order]