Supreme Courts Directs A Family Court In UP To Conduct Trial Through Video Conferencing

The Supreme Court, taking note of the pandemic situation, directed a Family Court in Uttar Pradesh to conduct the trial through video conferencing.

The bench comprising CJI SA Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran issued this order taking note of the present situation where all proceedings are conducted through video conferencing.

The bench was considering a review petition filed against an order dismissing a transfer petition filed by a 'wife' seeking transfer of a matrimonial case filed by her 'husband', from the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket District, New Delhi. She contended that here is no video conferencing facility at Gautambudh Nagar, District Courts, and that the video conferencing is not permissible in matrimonial matters as per judgment in Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh. While dismissing the transfer petition (this was before Santhini Judgment), the Court had directed the trial in this case to be through video conferencing.

While dismissing the Review Petition, the bench observed thus:

Due to the ongoing pandemic, physical functioning of the Courts has been stopped since March, 2020. Proceedings in all Courts are being conducted only through video conferencing. In the normal course we would not have directed video conferencing in respect of matrimonial matters as per the judgment of this Court mentioned above. However, in the present situation where all proceedings are conducted through video conferencing, we direct the Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to conduct the trial through video conferencing.

Santhini Judgment

In Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra (then CJI) had overruled the directions issued in the case of Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, observing that if proceedings are directed to be conducted through videoconferencing, "the spirit of the 1984 Act will be in peril and further the cause of justice would be defeated". ""There is no provision that the matter can be dealt with by the Family Court Judge by taking recourse to videoconferencing. When a matter is not transferred and settlement proceedings take place which is in the nature of reconciliation, it will be well nigh impossible to bridge the gap. What one party can communicate with other, if they are left alone for sometime, is not possible in video conferencing 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…", the majority judgment read.

Justice DY Chandrachud had given a dissenting opinion in this case. "There is, in my view, no basis either in the Family Courts Act 1984 or in law to exclude recourse to video conferencing at any stage of the proceedings. Whether video conferencing should be permitted must be determined as part of the rational exercise of judgment by the Family Court… Family Courts must encourage the use of technology to facilitate speedy and effective solutions. Above all, it must be acknowledged that a whole-hearted acceptance of technology is necessary for courts to meet societal demands for efficient and timely justice.", he had opined.

Case: Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan vs. Navin Chauhan [Review Petition (C) No.472 of 2018] 

Coram: CJI SA Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran 

Citation: LL 2021 SC 35

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order