Matrimonial disputes — Use of technology — Video conferencing — Distinction between reconciliation stage and post-settlement failure stage — Video conferencing permissible only after settlement fails and upon joint application/consent of both parties — Discretion of Family Court — Clarified. (Paras 13, 18, 30)

advocatemmmohan

Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 9, Section 11 — Reconciliation proceedings — Prayer for appearance through video conferencing at stage of settlement — Permissibility — Held, not permissible — Reconciliation requires presence of parties at same place and time — Confidentiality and in-camera requirement — Emphasised. (Paras 12, 14–19, 30)

Matrimonial disputes — Use of technology — Video conferencing — Distinction between reconciliation stage and post-settlement failure stage — Video conferencing permissible only after settlement fails and upon joint application/consent of both parties — Discretion of Family Court — Clarified. (Paras 13, 18, 30)

Article 227 of Constitution of India — Challenge to interlocutory order rejecting request for video conferencing — No jurisdictional error — Revision dismissed. (Paras 7, 31, 32)

Precedents considered — Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh — Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam — Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan v. Navin Chauhan — Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar v. Nerella Sowjanya — Distinguished.

---

JUDGMENT

The petitioner/husband challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the order dated 10.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.742 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.1313 of 2022 by the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, rejecting his request to participate in reconciliation proceedings through video conferencing. (Paras 2, 7)

The respondent/wife had instituted proceedings under Mohammedan Law for restitution of conjugal rights. At the stage of reconciliation, the petitioner sought permission to appear through video conferencing on the ground that he was residing in Canada and unable to secure leave. The wife opposed the application and did not consent to video conferencing. (Paras 3, 4, 11)

The core issue framed was whether, at the stage of reconciliation in matrimonial disputes before the Family Court, appearance through video conferencing is legally permissible. (Para 12)

Relying principally on the majority decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, it was held that reconciliation requires the presence of both parties at the same place and time. The statutory scheme of the Family Courts Act mandates in-camera proceedings and obligates the Court to make earnest efforts for settlement. The spatial distance inherent in video conferencing would impair effective interaction and may dent the process of reconciliation. (Paras 13–17)

It was reiterated that video conferencing may be permitted only after settlement fails, and that too upon a joint application or consent memorandum of both parties, subject to the discretion of the Family Court. At the reconciliation stage, even consent is of no relevance, as the law does not permit recourse to video conferencing. (Paras 18–20, 30)

The minority view in Santhini favouring technological facilitation was noted, but the majority view constitutes binding law. Judgments relied upon by the petitioner permitting video conferencing were distinguished as either not considering Santhini or arising in different factual contexts, including pandemic situations. (Paras 21–29)

Accordingly, it was held that the Family Court committed no illegality in rejecting the application for reconciliation through video conferencing. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed. (Paras 31, 32)