Where video conferencing is ordinarily not directed for the trial of matrimonial matters, may a Family Court still be directed to conduct such a trial through video conferencing when all court proceedings are being conducted only through video conferencing on account of the pandemic?
Transfer Petition — Matrimonial trial — Video conferencing — Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh — Pandemic proceedings —
Matrimonial trial — Video conferencing — Pandemic exception —
On facts, held: Although video conferencing is ordinarily not directed for the trial of matrimonial matters, where all proceedings are conducted only through video conferencing due to the pandemic, the Family Court may be directed to conduct the trial through video conferencing. The Review Petition is dismissed. (¶3, 4)
Where video conferencing is ordinarily not directed for the trial of matrimonial matters, may a Family Court still be directed to conduct such a trial through video conferencing when all court proceedings are being conducted only through video conferencing on account of the pandemic?
Yes. Although video conferencing is ordinarily not directed for matrimonial trials, where all proceedings are conducted only through video conferencing due to the pandemic, the Family Court may be directed to conduct the trial through video conferencing. [¶3]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“The Petitioner preferred Transfer Petition (C) No.1252 of 2016 seeking transfer of HMA No.487 of 2015 filed by the Respondent from the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket District, New Delhi. The Transfer Petition was dismissed taking into account the fact that no serious inconvenience will be caused to the Petitioner for travelling between Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to Saket, New Delhi. While dismissing the Transfer Petition, this Court directed the trial to be conducted at Gautambudh Nagar, Family Court through video conferencing.”
“This Review Petition has been filed by the Petitioner on the ground that there is no video conferencing facility at Gautambudh Nagar, District Courts. Another ground in the Review Petition is that video conferencing is not permissible in matrimonial matters in accordance with the judgment of this Court date 09.10.2017 in a case titled “Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh”.”
“Notice was issued in the Review Petition on 20.03.2018. 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.”
“The Review Petition is dismissed.”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
The Petitioner preferred Transfer Petition (C) No.1252 of 2016 seeking transfer of HMA No.487 of 2015 filed by the Respondent from the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket District, New Delhi. The Transfer Petition was dismissed taking into account the fact that no serious inconvenience will be caused to the Petitioner for travelling between Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to Saket, New Delhi. While dismissing the Transfer Petition, this Court directed the trial to be conducted at Gautambudh Nagar, Family Court through video conferencing.
This Review Petition has been filed by the Petitioner on the ground that there is no video conferencing facility at Gautambudh Nagar, District Courts. Another ground in the Review Petition is that video conferencing is not permissible in matrimonial matters in accordance with the judgment of this Court date 09.10.2017 in a case titled “Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh”.
Notice was issued in the Review Petition on 20.03.2018. 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.
The Review Petition is dismissed. ………....................CJI. [S.A. BOBDE] ..........……...................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] ….……………………...J. [VINEET SARAN] New Delhi January 22, 2021
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
Are judgments applying the clean slate theory under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to dues before CIRP a precedent on tax dues arising during CIRP?
WP.22505/2024 · Madras High Court
Are repeated unsubstantiated complaints and reckless allegations against a spouse and his family mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act?
CMA(MD).1160/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy