Video Conferencing Not Permissible At Reconciliation Stage In Matrimonial Disputes: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023 are procedural in nature and cannot be construed to permit video conferencing even at the stage of reconciliation in matrimonial proceedings as it is against Supreme Court's judgment in Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venkatesh. The high court referred to Santhini judgment wherein it was held that only once a settlement fails and if both the parties give consent that a witness can be examined in video-conferencing, that it can be allowed. That apart, when the parties give consent that it is necessary in a specific factual matrix having regard to the convenience of the parties, the Family Court may allow the prayer for video-conferencing. The Apex Court also added a safeguard that a joint application should be filed before the Family Court Judge, who shall take a decision.Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held that video conferencing is not permissible at the stage of reconciliation in matrimonial disputes, as the very object of such proceedings is to enable the parties to interact personally in a confidential atmosphere so as to explore the possibility of settlement."This Court do not say that the Rules, 2023 are ultra vires Article 227(2)(b) read with the proviso to Clause (3), as this Court is of the considered view that the said Rules, 2023 have been framed generally to regulate video conferencing. The said Rules are procedural in nature and are to be understood as regulating the procedure for video conferencing where such conferencing is otherwise permissible. However, in cases where video conferencing is not permissible, or is not permissible up to or at a particular stage of judicial proceedings, the said Rules shall have no application. This Court is further unable to construe the Rules, 2023 in the manner urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The submissions are misconceived and proceed on misunderstanding of the settled legal principles and that too the very basic principles. This Court cannot read the Rules, 2023 as mandating video conferencing in matters such as the present case, whether before the Family Court or a Civil Court dealing with matrimonial disputes, so as to permit video conferencing even at the stage of reconciliation, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santhini (supra). The Rules, 2023 cannot be construed as being in conflict with, or inconsistent with, the provisions of the statutory enactments or the judge-made law laid down by the High Court or the Supreme Court".The petitioner-husband, residing in Texas, USA, filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the order of the trial court, which had refused to permit him to participate in reconciliation proceedings through video conferencing. It was his case that he was unable to travel to India as his employer had denied him leave, and therefore sought permission to attend the proceedings virtually.The petitioner's counsel had referred to Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023 wherein Rule 3(i) clearly provides that “Video conferencing facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings and proceedings conducted by the Court.” He submitted that the expression “Court” is defined under Rule 2(iv) means “a physical Court and a virtual Court or a Tribunal.”He further referred to Rule 3(iii), which stipulates that “all relevant statutory provisions applicable to judicial proceedings, including the provisions of the CPC, CrPC, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “the Evidence Act”), the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.T. Act”), and other relevant Acts and Rules, shall apply to proceedings conducted through video conferencing”.It was thus submitted that VC can be availed at any stage of the proceedings, including matrimonial proceedings, which are judicial in nature. According to him, such facility can be extended even at the stage of reconciliation.Per contra, it was contended that reconciliation proceedings require the personal presence of the parties, as their object is to enable direct interaction in a confidential environment to explore the possibility of settlement. It was submitted that such proceedings cannot be effectively conducted through virtual mode.The Court observed that the issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venkatesh, 2018 1 SCC 1, and in particular referred to paragraph 58 thereof, which makes it clear that video conferencing may be resorted to only after settlement efforts have failed and upon consent of both parties. Recording its conclusion on the points for determination, the Court observed as follows:“ In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds, on points of determination 'A' and 'B', that video conferencing is permissible in matrimonial proceedings, whether before the Family Court or the Civil Court, after...

Video Conferencing Not Permissible At Reconciliation Stage In Matrimonial Disputes: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Video Conferencing Not Permissible At Reconciliation Stage In Matrimonial Disputes: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers