The court upheld the right to privacy in sensitive family law matters, allowing trials to be conducted 'in camera' when necessary.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Exts. P8 and P10 orders of the learned Family Court, Neyyattinkara, because, through the first, the learned court had dismissed IA.No.6 of 2025 - wherein, she requested that the trial in OP.No.504 of 2023 be held “in camera”; while, through the second, the learned court has refused to review its earlier order.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-

Smt. Sanu S. Malakkel, submitted that, as has been stated by her client in Ext. P7 application, the disputes between the parties are sensitive in nature and could have the effect of affecting their privacy. She explained that, her client has produced certain videographs indicating compromising situations between the 1^st respondent herein and another lady; and further that, since she herself is working in a Nationalized Bank, it is necessary that her privacy be fully protected, lest it prejudice her irreparably in future.

3. The learned counsel further argued that the learned Family Court, however, did not consider any of these aspects in its proper perspective; but has dismissed the application by a one-line order, namely Ext. P8, merely stating that there were no “reasonable grounds”. She pointed out that, even though her client did not rush to this Court, but applied to the same court for review, that has also been dismissed by Ext.P10. She prayed that, consequently, this original petition be allowed and IA.No.6 of 2025 in OP.No.504/2023 be ordered.

4. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents - Sri J. G. Syamnath, submitted that his client has no objection to the trial being conducted in open court or “in camera”, and that his only concern is that it should be completed at the earliest, without any delay. He further pleaded that, even if this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner, it may be clarified that, merely because the trial is to be held “in camera”, it shall not be delayed in any manner.

5. We examined Ext.P7, which is the application which led to Ext.P8 order.

6. As rightly argued by Smt. Sanu S.

Malakkel, the application has been filed by the petitioner, stated to be a lady working in a Nationalized Bank and from a reputed family. Indubitably, she would certainly want her privacy to be protected.

7. No doubt, in normal circumstances, all trials have to be conducted in open court. However, in this case, there is an intervening situation, namely that the petitioner states that she has produced certain videographs showing her husband in intimate moments with another lady. This may cast aspersions not on the

1^st respondent alone; but may a because it is her matrimonial life that is at stake. 8. We have, therefore, little doubt that the petitioner was fully justified in having filed Ext. P7; and that the learned court ought to have allowed it, rather than have dismissed it through Ext. P8 order.

9. This is more so, when the 1^st respondent does not oppose the conduct of the trial “in camera”.

10. Moreover, this would be to the benefit of respondents 2 and 3 also, who are the parents of the 1^st respondent - since they would surely be concerned about their son’s privacy.

11. In the afore circumstances, this Original Petition is allowed and Exts. P8 and P10 are set aside; consequently, allowing I.A. No. 6 of 2025 in O.P. No. 504 of 2023.

12. The learned Family Court will consequently proceed to hear and dispose of O.P.

No.504 of 2023 by conducting the trial “in camera”, without causing any unnecessary delay in the process.

In order to protect the privacy of the parties, we direct the Registry to anonymize the names and address of the petitioner and the respondents in all papers.

Sd/-