Reconciliation In Matrimonial Matters Before Family Court Not Permissible Through Video Conferencing: Andhra Pradesh HC Reiterates

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that reconciliation proceedings between a married couple before the Family Court are to be conducted in the personal presence of both parties and video conferencing in such a case is impermissible. Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018), Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held: "I am of the considered view that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Santhini: (i) for the purposes of reconciliation in matrimonial matters before the Family Courts video conferencing is not permissible, and (ii) it is only after the efforts of reconciliation and settlement fails, the videoconferencing can be resorted on the joint application filed by the parties or the memorandum of consent by both the parties, husband and wife, for such videoconferencing, in the discretion of the Court, if the Court considers it appropriate." The order was passed in a Criminal Revision Petition, filed by an aggrieved husband, whose petition to conduct reconciliation proceedings by way of video conferencing was dismissed. The petitioner claimed that he had secured a job in Canada, and was not able to secure the leaves required to travel to India. He stated that the trial court, without taking into consideration the judgement rendered in Nerala Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar v. Nerala Sowjanya, dismissed the petition only on the objection raised by the respondent/wife. After considering the judgement relied on by the petitioner, the Bench noted that the judgement does not take into consideration that judgement rendered in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, which was passed by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court. In Santhini the Supreme Court stated that video conferencing "may be permitted only after the settlement fails, on the joint application of the parties or on their respective consent memo, if the Family Court feels it appropriate". "So, the videoconferencing at the stage of reconciliation/settlement process is not permissible at all. The question of consent of both the parties is also of no consideration or relevance, at the stage of the reconciliation," the high court noted referring to Santhini. Background: Originally the family court proceedings were initiated by an aggrieved wife challenging the divorce proceeding initiated by her husband in Canada. She stated that on the promise of securing a job her husband had move to Canada and abruptly out of the blue file for divorce before a court in Canada. The wife along with her name petition had also filed and interlocutary petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The husband on the other hand had filed and application praying that reconciliation be permitted by way of video conferencing since he was not able to secure leaves and travel to India. The wife challenged the application filed by the husband and stated that she would only agree to reconciliation if it was conducted in person. She stated that her sister in law and mother in law were encouraging her husband to divorce her. She further stated that her husband was residing with his mother and sister and they would surely influence the proceedings if conducted by way of video conferencing. Accepting the argument advanced by the wife the trial court dismissed the petition for video conferencing. Challenging the same the present revision was filed. After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the bench noted that the law was already established in Santhini judgement. In this case, the apex court had observed that "what one party can communicate with other, if they are left alone for some time, is not possible in videoconferencing and if possible, it is very doubtful whether the emotional bond can be established in a virtual meeting during videoconferencing. Videoconferencing may create a dent in the process of settlement". Thus the high court dismissed the husband's petition and upheld the trial court's order. Case title: X vs. Y Counsel for the Petitioner: Suryam Gannavarapu Counsel for respondent: Sri S. Lakshminarayana ReddyClick Here To Read/Download Order

Reconciliation In Matrimonial Matters Before Family Court Not Permissible Through Video Conferencing: Andhra Pradesh HC Reiterates

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags