Family Courts can allow video conferencing for counselling if justified by circumstances, even without mutual consent, ensuring the cause of justice is served.

JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The respondent filed O.P.(HMA) No.184 of 2022 before the Family Court, Thodupuzha seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He has filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 to attend the counselling through video call. The petitioner opposed it. However, the Family Court as per order dated 12.01.2023 allowed I.A.No.1 of 2022 and the respondent was permitted to attend counselling through video call. The petitioner challenges the said order in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. Marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised as per customary rites. Their relationship eventually estranged. Therefore, the respondent filed O.P. (HMA) No.184 of 2022. The respondent has filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 stating that although he attended the court proceedings in person on 13.09.2022 and 16.09.2022, counselling did not take place for want of presence of the petitioner. He had to go to Malaysia thereafter, where he is employed. In such circumstances, he has filed the said interlocutory application seeking permission of the court to attend counselling through video call.

4. The petitioner filed objection, a copy of which is Ext.P3. She contends that personal presence of the respondent is necessary for an effective counselling. It is her contention that there was no serious issues between the parties and if both parties attend the counselling in person, the differences of opinion between them can certainly be resolved. In such circumstances, the petitioner sought to refuse permission to the respondent to attend the counselling through video call.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing reliance in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh [(2018)1 SCC 1] would contend that in a Family Court proceedings counselling through video conferencing or such other on-line platform cannot be allowed unless both sides consent for such a course. The learned counsel further would submit that in the facts and circumstances of this case, personal interaction between the parties in the presence of the Counsellor is absolutely necessary. The endeavour of the Family Court as well as the Counsellor in a matrimonial dispute shall be to re- unite the spouses and in such an attempt, the effort shall be sincere and effective. Unless both parties attend the counselling in person and interact face to face, the dispute which, in fact, is in a narrow compass, cannot be resolved.

6. In Santhini (supra) the majority view has been summarised in paragraph No.56 of the judgment, which reads,-

“56. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we sum up our conclusion as follows :-

(i) In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in particular Section 11 , the hearing of matrimonial disputes may have to be conducted in camera.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(iv) In a transfer petition, video conferencing cannot be directed.

(v) Our directions shall apply prospectively.

(vi) The decision in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam [ 2017 (2) KHC 380 ] is overruled to the aforesaid extent.”

7. Clause (iii) would say that if the Family Court deems it appropriate, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that video conferencing will subserve the cause of justice, it may so direct. Therefore, it cannot be said that video conferencing is totally obviated from the proceedings before the Family Courts.

8. Rule 6(2) of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) , 2021 reads,