Videoconferencing in matrimonial disputes is not permissible at the reconciliation stage; it can only occur post-failure of reconciliation with mutual consent.

JUDGMENT :

(RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.)

Heard Sri Suryam Gannavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife filed F.C.O.P.No.1313 of 2022 (in short ‘FCOP’), pending in the Court of XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada (in short ‘the Family Court’), through General Power of Attorney holder, under the Mohammedan Law, for restitution of conjugal rights. The marriage (Nikha) was performed on 05.12.2020 as per Muslim law, rites and customs at Hyderabad. It is the case of the respondent/wife that the husband used to work in Canada and also gave a hope to the wife that he will take her to Canada and would settle there. The wife came to know that the husband filed a petition for granting divorce, petition No.FC-22-00000623-0000 before the Superior Court of Justice Oshawa, Toronto, Canada on 03.05.2022 on allegedly false averments, in a Court having no jurisdiction. She filed FCOP stating that the husband without any reasonable excuse or justifiable cause withdrew from the society of the wife and was not allowing her to join the husband to lead marital life, though he was bound to discharge his duties towards the wife and so the wife was entitled for restitution of conjugal rights. Inter alia, the harassment and consequently, complaints against the husband were also pleaded. The more details of the pleadings are not required to bestated for the decision of the present petition as it arises out of an interlocutory order passed in I.A.No.742 of 2024 in FCOP No.1313 of 2022.

3. In FCOP, the petitioner/husband filed I.A.No.742 of 2024 to permit him to appear before the Family Court, Vijayawada through video conference on a date and at a time designated for reconciliation. He inter alia pleaded that he was residing at Canada for job purpose and despite his efforts, he was unable to secure leave and so unable to attend the Court and intended to appear through video conference.

4. The wife/respondent filed counter. She denied the material allegations and submitted that the husband was trying to escape from the legal process for the last 1½ years and was seeking adjournments to come to India for attending the reconciliation proceedings, but now he filed the application for appearance through video conference mode for reconciliation, which was not permissible. The application was not maintainable. She also submitted that the mother and sister of the husband were the main persons who were trying to destroy the marital relationship. They were residing along with the husband in Canada and if the video conference was permitted, there would be chances of provocation and to mislead the reconciliation process. She also submitted that she was not giving her consent for video conference.

5. The learned Judge, Family Court framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for relief as prayed for?”

6. The learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the petition I.A.No.742 of2024, observing that there was no consent of both the parties which was must for conducting reconciliation through video conferencing. It also observed that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent/wife had been staying with the petitioner/husband in Canada and they certainly influenced the petitioner/husband. The learned Judge, Family Court, in that regard, considered the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nerala Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar v. Nerala Sowjanya, [2019 Supreme (AP) 357] relied upon by the side of th