JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard, Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. We also request Mr. H.K. Das, learned standing counsel for the High Court to assist the Court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the evidence can be taken by video conferencing method in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh. 2. The respondent herein had preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.PC claiming maintenance from the petitioner who is her husband. In course of the proceeding by the order dated 21.07.2017 in C.R.- 07M/2016 an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was ordered against the petitioner. 3. In the proceeding, the petitioner desired that his evidence be taken through video conferencing method, inasmuch as, he is medically ill and not in a position to personally appear before the Court for his deposition. But by the order dated 08.03.2019, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected such prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the medical report produced had led the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to arrive at a view that the health condition of the petitioner is not such that he cannot appear before the Court or that he cannot produce his witnesses before the Court. As regards the production of other witness, we have been told by Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel that such other witnesses who are otherwise medically fit will appear before the Court in their respective depositions. 4. As regards the conclusion arrived at by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that a view cannot be formed that the health condition of the petitioner is such that he cannot appear before the Court, we are view that after perusal of the medical document, it is difficult to ascertain as to whether or not the petitioner is actually in a medically fit condition to appear before the Court. The medical report indicates that he is suffering from very high sugar level to the extent he is above sugar level of 550 mg/DL. 5. We have been told that a normal blood sugar level is around 140 mg and therefore, the blood sugar level of 550 mg cannot be said to be of normal level which would not affect the health condition of the person concerned. 5. We have been told that a normal blood sugar level is around 140 mg and therefore, the blood sugar level of 550 mg cannot be said to be of normal level which would not affect the health condition of the person concerned. Secondly, the medical report also shows that the petitioner is having some neurological problem in his lower spinal cord which requires certain kind of medical treatment which again may be a condition where the petitioner cannot be in a position to physically travel and appear before court. 6. Further Mr. H.K. Das, learned standing counsel for the Gauhati High Court upon instruction informs that appropriate video conferencing facility is available in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh. If the facility is available, we do not see as to what prejudice would be caused to either of the parties or even to the Court proceeding, if the evidence of the petitioner is taken by allowing him to depose through the video conferencing method. We have been told that there is no specific criteria or any category of case whose proceeding alone can be conducted through the video conferencing method. 7. In the aforesaid situation, we deem it appropriate that the order dated 08.03.2019 requires an interference to the extent that the petitioner be allowed to make his deposition before the Court through the video conferencing method, if otherwise the facility is available, and it is technically feasible to take such deposition by the video conferencing method. 8. We are aware of the fact that we have issued this order without issuing notice to the respondent wife who is the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 125. We are of the view that such notice is not required inasmuch as, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent wife who is complainant if the evidence of the petitioner is taken through the video conferencing method, nor does any vested legal right exist in favour of the complainant that the evidence of the respondent would have to be taken before the Court itself and not through any other legally acceptable means. 9. Petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.