No Virtual Handshakes: Why Andhra Pradesh HC Says Reconciliation Needs Real Presence

In a ruling that underscores the irreplaceable human touch in family reconciliations, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a husband's plea for video conferencing in divorce proceedings. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held that virtual appearances via Zoom or Skype are off-limits during the initial reconciliation stage, prioritizing Supreme Court precedents over state video rules.

From Texas to Trial Court: A Husband's Long-Distance Dilemma

Bheemisetti Suryanarayana, residing in Texas, USA, filed H.M.O.P. No.35 of 2023 for divorce from his wife, Bheemisetti Mrudula Naga Bhavani, through his father's power of attorney. Unable to secure leave from his employer, he sought permission via I.A. No.457 of 2024 to join reconciliation efforts virtually. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Yellamanchili rejected it on October 24, 2025, noting his earlier promise to visit India in April 2025 and a prior High Court case allowing Skype but deeming travel feasible. Suryanarayana challenged this in Civil Revision Petition No.311 of 2026 under Article 227.

Petitioner's Tech-Savvy Push vs. Wife's Insistence on Face-to-Face

Petitioner's Arguments : Counsel Sri B. Abhay Siddanth Mootha argued the impugned order ignored technological advances and Andhra Pradesh High Court "Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023" (Rules 2023). Rule 3(i) permits VC "at all stages of judicial proceedings," including reconciliation in matrimonial cases before civil courts. He claimed Rules 2023, framed under Article 227, override the 2018 Supreme Court case Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh , distinguishing it as a transfer petition under the Family Courts Act—not applicable here. Earlier AP HC rulings like Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar v. Nerella Akula Sowjanya (2019) allowed Skype for reconciliation, binding on coordinate benches unless overruled.

Respondent's Stance : The wife countered no bona fide reasons justified VC, insisting on personal attendance for genuine reconciliation.

Supreme Court Shadows Local Rules: The Legal Tug-of-War

Justice Tilhari dissected the clash, affirming Santhini 's majority view: VC only post-failed reconciliation, via joint application, to preserve in-camera confidentiality under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Spatial proximity is essential for emotional bonding and judge's nuanced interaction—virtual setups risk denting trust.

Rules 2023, procedural under Article 227(2)(b), can't nullify this. High Court rules must align with statutes and Article 141 binding precedents; they don't alter legislative domains like family law. Pre-2023 cases like Nerella ignored Santhini , while Mohammad Razik Shaik v. Sufia Sultana Bano (2025) rightly followed it. Even COVID-era exceptions ( Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan ) were narrow.

The court rejected claims Rules 2023 "take away" Santhini 's basis—only legislatures can retrospectively amend substantive law, not procedural rules inconsistent with existing statutes.

Key Observations Straight from the Bench

"The reconciliation requires presence of both the parties at the same place and the same time so as to be effectively conducted. The spatial distance will distant the possibility of reconciliation..."

"Rules made under Article 227(2)(b) cannot encroach upon the legislative domain... taking away the basis of Santhini (supra), would require legislative amendment in the Family Courts Act and Hindu Marriage Act."

"Video conferencing is permissible in matrimonial proceedings... after reconciliation fails."

As echoed in reports like Video Conferencing Not Permissible At Reconciliation Stage In Matrimonial Disputes: Andhra Pradesh High Court , this reinforces Santhini 's enduring hold.

No Reversal: Petition Dismissed, Physical Presence Prevails

The CRP stands dismissed on April 30, 2026—no costs. This maintains the trial court's order, mandating in-person reconciliation before any VC pivot. For NRIs in matrimonial woes, it signals: book that flight. Future cases affirm physical mandates for sensitive family stages, ensuring reconciliation's sanctity amid tech temptations.