Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh
"The Supreme Court cannot direct video conferencing in a matrimonial transfer petition; given the Family Courts Act's emphasis on reconciliation and the right to in-camera proceedings, video conferencing may be used only after settlement fails, on the parties' joint request or where the Family Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether, instead of transferring a matrimonial case from one State to another, the Supreme Court can direct that the proceedings be conducted by video conferencing, as suggested in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam?
- (ii)
Whether hearing matrimonial disputes by video conferencing is consistent with the scheme of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which emphasises reconciliation and settlement and entitles either party to proceedings in camera?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 9 (duty of the Family Court to make efforts for settlement) and Section 11 (proceedings may be held in camera, and shall be if either party so desires).
- (ii)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 25 (power of the Supreme Court to transfer suits and proceedings from one State to another).
- (iii)
Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam (a two-judge Bench's suggestion that video conferencing could be used in place of transfer in matrimonial cases).
Application to Facts & Circumstances
Transfer petitions seeking to move matrimonial proceedings from one State to another came before a two-judge Bench, which doubted the suggestion in Krishna Veni Nagam that such cases could be heard by video conferencing instead of being transferred. The question was referred to a three-judge Bench.
Dipak Misra C.J., writing for himself and Khanwilkar J., emphasised that the Family Courts Act places reconciliation and settlement at the heart of matrimonial proceedings, and that Section 11 entitles either party to insist on proceedings in camera. Efforts at reconciliation depend on the parties being personally present, and hearing them by video conferencing at that stage would defeat the scheme of the Act.
The majority therefore held that the Supreme Court cannot direct video conferencing in a transfer petition. Once settlement efforts have failed, the Family Court may allow the case to be heard by video conferencing if both parties apply jointly or file their consent, and may also direct it where, in the circumstances of the case, it considers that video conferencing will serve the cause of justice.
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. dissented. In his view video conferencing is a gender-neutral tool that furthers access to justice, can be used consistently with in-camera proceedings, and should not be excluded, including at the stage of settlement.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
Krishna Veni Nagam was overruled to the extent that it allowed video conferencing to be directed in place of a transfer; the directions were to apply prospectively.
- (ii)
In a transfer petition, the Supreme Court cannot direct that the matrimonial proceedings be conducted by video conferencing.
- (iii)
After settlement fails, the Family Court may permit video conferencing on the parties' joint request or consent, or direct it where it will serve the cause of justice. The transfer petitions were to be decided on their own merits.
Authorities Cited
Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.
- Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150Full text of Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam on Indian Kanoon