Back
2021 Supreme(SC) 32
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., L. NAGESWARA RAO, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
ANJALI BRAHMAWAR CHAUHAN – APPELLANT
VERSUS
NAVIN CHAUHAN – RESPONDENT
Review Petition (C) No.472 of 2018 In Transfer Petition (C) No.1252 of 2016
Decided on : 22-01-2021
For the Petitioner(s):Richa Kapoor, Ayushi Rajput, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Though video conferencing is not permissible in matrimonial matters, due to ongoing pandemic, video conferencing can be permitted.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 24 – Constitution of India – Article 137 – Transfer of matrimonial petition – Due to ongoing pandemic, physical functioning of Courts has been stopped since March, 2020 – Proceedings in all Courts are being conducted only through video conferencing – Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P., directed to conduct trial through video conferencing – Review Petition dismissed. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner preferred Transfer Petition (C) No.1252 of 2016 seeking transfer of HMA No.487 of 2015 filed by 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 Review Petition is that video conferencing is not permissible in matrimonial matters in accordance with judgment of this Court dated 09.10.2017 in a case titled Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh”.
Findings of Court:
In normal course we would not have directed video conferencing in respect of matrimonial matters as per judgment of this Court mentioned above.
Result : Review Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. 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.
2. 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”.
3. 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.
4. The Review Petition is dismissed.
