JUDGMENT : The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, whereby, the requested opportunity of adducing evidence through Video Conferencing has been granted; but without making a provision for a Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point” of the witness, who is stated to be presently in Canada. 2. Sri.Alexander Joseph – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, as per Rule 5(4) of Ext.P12 – Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (“Rules:” for short) framed by this Court, the Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point” must be an official of the Indian Embassy/Indian Consulate/High Commission, when it was situated oversees. He argued that, it is only in exceptional circumstances, if any genuine reason is to be shown, can the Court dispense with this; and he relied upon Rule 8(23) of the said Rules in substantiation. He pointed out that, however, in Ext.P10, no such reasons have even been whisperingly stated by the learned Court, while dispensing with the Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point”; and hence, prayed that Ext.P20 be set aside. 3. However, in response, Sri.M.Shyju – learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that this is a case where the exemption under Rule 8(23) of Ext.P12- “Rules” would come to play because, his client is in Canada and it is not possible for the Court to appoint a Co-ordinator in such circumstances. He thus prayed that Ext.P10 be left uninterdicted. 4. Even though we have heard Sri.M.Shyju on the afore lines, the fact remains that the “Rules” render it indubitable that, in ordinary circumstances and to the extent possible, the Courts adducing evidence through video conferencing, must ensure that there is a Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point” also; and as rightly argued by Sri.Alexander Joseph, when such point is oversees, it is the official of the Indian Embassy/Consulate/High Commission, who is to be addressed. The only exception possible to this is couched in Rule 8(23) of the “Rules” which authorises it only for “any genuine reason which the Court may decide” 5. However, when one examines Ext.P10, apart from merely saying that “I cannot find any sufficient reason to appoint a Co-oridinator at the remote point” (sic), the learned Family Court offers no other justification in entering such a holding. 6. However, when one examines Ext.P10, apart from merely saying that “I cannot find any sufficient reason to appoint a Co-oridinator at the remote point” (sic), the learned Family Court offers no other justification in entering such a holding. 6. We are afraid that, as per the “Rules”, it is the duty of the learned Trial Court to ensure that there is a Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point” as a normative rule; and that any exemption to this can only be for the reasons stated and in the manner stipulated under Rule 8(23) thereof. 7. In such perspective, we are certain that Ext.P10 cannot find our favour and that the matter must obtain reconsideration at the hands of the learned Family Court itself, adverting to the “Rules”. In the afore circumstances, we allow this Original Petition and set aside Ext.P10; with a consequential direction to the learned Family court to reconsider the matter, after affording necessary opportunity to both sides, adverting to the “Rules”; thus culminating in an appropriate fresh order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.