The court considered the practical difficulties in implementing visitation right through Video-Conferencing and emphasized the expeditious disposal of pending O.Ps.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order and decree dated 04.01.2022 made in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.527 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/wife challenging the order of the learned Principal Judge 04.01.2022 made in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.527 of 2021, ordering visitation right to the respondent/husband through Video-Conferencing.

2. The appellant/wife has filed H.M.O.P.No.527 of 2021 against the respondent/husband under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage conducted between them on 24.02.2019 and for a permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- to maintain herself and her minor son. The respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.755 of 2021 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for Restitution of conjugal rights. Pending both the H.M.O.Ps., the respondent filed I.A.No.5 of 2021 seeking visitation right and interim custody of the minor son viz., S.J.Vaibhav Shri on weekends and special holidays. The appellant opposed the same. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore, by order dated 04.01.2022 made in I.A.No.5 of 2021, considering the Covid situation, ordered visitation right through Video-Conferencing. According to the appellant, the minor child aged 2 ½ years is very active and it is very difficult to keep him in one place. The respondent has filed petition only to harass the appellant and he has no interest in seeing the child. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the order made in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.527 of 2021.

3. It is the case of the respondent that being the father of the minor child, he is very much interested in seeing the child and developing acquaintance with the child. The learned Judge considering the interest and right of the respondent to have the minor child and considering all the materials available on record, ordered visitation right to the respondent through Video Conference. The reason given by the appellant to set aside the order is not valid. It is not difficult to see the child through the Video Conference.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

5. This Court, by the order dated 23.08.2022, in C.M.A.No.748 of 2022, directed the appellant to be ready along with her child on 28.08.2022 and 04.09.2022 for Video-conferencing call by the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as per the order of this Court, on 28.08.2022 and 04.09.2022, the respondent saw the child through Video-conferencing. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant denied the said submission. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on both the days, the child could not be held in one place for Video-conferencing and child was running here and there.

6. As per the direction of this Court, both the appellant and respondent appeared before this Court. The appellant brought the child to the Court along with her. The minor child viz., S.J.Vaibhav Shri seems to be very active, he did not stand in one place and he was restless when the appellant was holding him. Considering the above fact and our observation in the open Court, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is very difficult to show the minor child through Video-Conferencing has considerable force and is acceptable. For the above reason, the order of the learned Principal Judge dated 04.01.2022 made in I.A.No.5 of 2021 is set aside. Both the O.Ps. filed by the appellant as well as the respondent are pending and pleadings are completed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent submitted that the O.Ps., are posted for enquiry. Both the H.M.O.Ps. are ripe for trial. In view of the above, the learned Principal