IMPORTANT POINTS (Per majority)
Hearing of matrimonial disputes may have to be conducted in camera.
After the settlement fails and when a joint application is filed or both the parties file their respective consent memorandum for hearing of the case through videoconferencing before the concerned Family Court, it may exercise the discretion to allow the said prayer.
After the settlement fails, if the Family Court feels it appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that videoconferencing will sub-serve the cause of justice, it may so direct.
In a transfer petition, video conferencing cannot be directed.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, CJI. [For himself and Khanwilkar, J.]

A two-Judge Bench in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150 while dealing with transfer petition seeking transfer of a case instituted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the 1955 Act') pending on the file of IInd Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh to the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, took note of the grounds of transfer and keeping in view the approach of the Court to normally allow the transfer of the proceedings having regard to the convenience of the wife, felt disturbed expressing its concern to the difficulties faced by the litigants travelling to this Court and, accordingly, posed the question whether there was any possibility to avoid the same. It also took note of the fact that in the process of hearing of the transfer petition, the matrimonial matters which are required to be dealt with expeditiously are delayed. That impelled the Court to pass an order on 09.01.2017 which enumerated the facts including the plight asserted by the wife, the concept of territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the 1955 Act, and reflected on the issues whether transfer of a case could be avoided and alternative mode could be thought of. Dwelling upon the said aspects, the Court articulated:-

"In these circumstances, we are prima facie of the view that we need to consider whether we could pass a general order to the effect that in case where husband files matrimonial proceedings at place where wife does not reside, the court concerned should entertain such petition only on the condition that the husband makes appropriate deposit to bear the expenses of the wife as may be determined by the Court. The Court may also pass orders from time to time for further deposit to ensure that the wife is not handicapped to defend the proceedings. In other cases, the husband may take proceedings before the Court in whose jurisdiction the wife resides which may lessen inconvenience to the parties and avoid delay. Any other option to remedy the situation can also be considered."

As the narration would exposit, the pivotal concern of the Court was whether an order could be passed so as to provide a better alternative to each individual who is compelled to move this Court.

2. The observation made in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 to the effect that on an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each Court on each admission day was noticed. The learned Judges apprised themselves about the observations made in Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, (2000) 9 SCC 255 Lalita A. Ranga v. Ajay Champalal Ranga, (2000) 9 SCC 355 Deepa v. Anil Panicker, (2000) 9 SCC 441 Archana Rastogi v. Rakesh Rastogi, (2000) 10 SCC 350 Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee, (2002) 10 SCC 480 Neelam Bhatia v. Satbir Singh Bhatia, (2004) 13 SCC 436 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 323 Soma Choudhury v. Gourab Choudhaury, (2004) 13 SCC 462 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 341 Rajesh Rani v. Tej Pal, (2007) 15 SCC 597 Vandana Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, (2008) 11 SCC 768 and Anju Ohri v. Varinder Ohri, (2007) 15 SCC 556which rest on the principle of "expedient for ends of justice" to transfer the proceedings. It also adverted to Premlata Singh v. Rita Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 277 wherein this Court had not transferred the proceedings but directed the husband to pay for travelling, lodging and boarding expenses of the wife and/or person accompanying her for each hearing. The said principle was also followed in Gana Saraswathi v. H. Raghu Prasad, (2000) 10 SCC 277.

3. The two-Judge Bench, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Senior Counsel who was requested to assist the Court, made certain references to the doctrine of 'forum non conveniens" and held that it can be applied to matrimonial proceedings for advancing the interest of justice. The learned Additional Solicitor Genera