VIDEO CONFERENCING RULES, 2023 — Scope — Not overriding substantive law (Paras 20, 28, 47–50) The Andhra Pradesh Video Conferencing Rules, 2023, though permitting use of virtual mode in judicial proceedings, cannot be construed to allow video conferencing at the stage of reconciliation in matrimonial disputes, as such interpretation would be inconsistent with the law declared by the Supreme Court.

advocatemmmohan

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS — Reconciliation — Video Conferencing — Impermissibility at initial stage (Paras 34–37)

Reconciliation in matrimonial disputes requires the physical presence of both parties at the same place and time to enable effective interaction, confidence-building, and meaningful settlement. Conducting reconciliation through video conferencing defeats the statutory scheme, as emotional engagement, privacy, and judicial facilitation cannot be adequately achieved in a virtual environment.

---

VIDEO CONFERENCING — Permissibility — Stage after failure of reconciliation — Conditions (Paras 24, 34, 37)

Video conferencing may be permitted only after efforts at reconciliation have failed, and that too subject to conditions such as consent of both parties, filing of joint application or consent memorandum, and satisfaction of the Court that such mode would subserve the cause of justice.

---

SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT — Binding nature — Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (Paras 24, 34–37, 54)

The law laid down by the Supreme Court that video conferencing is not permissible at the stage of reconciliation is binding under Article 141. The requirement of in-camera proceedings, confidentiality, and personal interaction in matrimonial disputes cannot be diluted by resorting to virtual mode at the reconciliation stage.

---

HIGH COURT RULES — Article 227 — Subordinate to statutory law and precedent (Paras 47–50, 54)

Rules framed by the High Court under Article 227 regulating procedure cannot override statutory provisions or the law declared by the Supreme Court. Such rules must be consistent with existing law and cannot be interpreted to nullify binding precedent.

---

VIDEO CONFERENCING RULES, 2023 — Scope — Not overriding substantive law (Paras 20, 28, 47–50)

The Andhra Pradesh Video Conferencing Rules, 2023, though permitting use of virtual mode in judicial proceedings, cannot be construed to allow video conferencing at the stage of reconciliation in matrimonial disputes, as such interpretation would be inconsistent with the law declared by the Supreme Court.

---

RECONCILIATION — Statutory mandate — Family law jurisprudence (Paras 33–35)

The statutory scheme under the Family Courts Act and Hindu Marriage Act mandates earnest efforts for reconciliation at the first instance. Such process requires sensitivity, confidentiality, and judicial interaction, which necessitates physical presence of parties.

---

USE OF TECHNOLOGY — Limitations in matrimonial disputes (Paras 35–36)

Though technology facilitates access to justice, it cannot substitute the human and emotional elements essential in matrimonial reconciliation. Virtual interaction may impair settlement efforts and undermine statutory objectives.

---

PRECEDENTS OF HIGH COURTS — Non-applicability when contrary to Supreme Court law (Paras 25–26)

Decisions permitting video conferencing at reconciliation stage, rendered without considering binding Supreme Court precedent, cannot be relied upon and do not lay down good law.

---

FINAL RESULT (Para 6, read with reasoning)

Impugned order refusing permission to participate in reconciliation through video conferencing upheld — Civil Revision Petition dismissed.