No zoom for marriage fixes: Andhra Pradesh High Court rejects US-based man’s plea for virtual reconciliation

The court clarified that video conferencing is permissible in metropolitan proceedings, whether before a family court or a civil court, only after reconciliation efforts have officially failed.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari heard the matter on April 30.

The order added that the Rules, 2023 cannot be construed as being in conflict with, or inconsistent with, the provisions of the statutory enactments or the judge-made law laid down by the high court or the Supreme Court.

Matrimonial dispute, USA resident and plea for virtual appearance

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute filed by the husband, who is currently residing in Texas, USA. The husband moved an interlocutory application seeking permission to appear for reconciliation through virtual platforms such as Zoom, WhatsApp, or Skype, citing his inability to travel to India due to the non-availability of leave, as his employer did not permit him to travel to India.

He claimed that he was unable to attend the court proceedings personally and therefore requested permission to participate in the reconciliation proceedings through video conferencing in the matrimonial dispute.

The wife filed a counter, denying the material allegations and contending that the application was liable to be dismissed, as no bona fide reasons or sufficient cause had been shown to permit the petitioner to appear through virtual mode for reconciliation. She further contended that the petitioner ought to attend the reconciliation proceedings in person.

The trial court had previously dismissed the husband’s request, noting that he was purportedly in a position to travel in India. Challenging this, the petitioner argued that the “Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023” applicable to the Andhra Pradesh High Court allow for virtual facilities at “all stages” of judicial proceedings.

Petitioner’s case

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Siddanth Mootha submitted that video conferencing is permissible and can be availed at any stage of the proceedings, including matrimonial proceedings, which are judicial in nature.

He submitted that Rule 3(i) clearly provides that “Video conferencing facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings and proceedings conducted by the Court.”

Supreme Court mandate vs high court rules

The court has addressed the question of whether the 2023 Video Conferencing Rules could override the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Santhini v Vijaya Venkatesh.

In the Santhini v Vijaya Venkatesh case, the Supreme Court held that video conferencing in matrimonial matters is only permissible after reconciliation efforts fail, and then only upon a joint application or mutual consent of both parties.

The high court clarified that the Rules framed by the high court under Article 227 cannot be inconsistent with statutory law or the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141.

The order added that the Rules framed under Article 227 cannot be inconsistent with statutory laws like the Family Courts Act, 1984, or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandate in-camera proceedings and earnest reconciliation efforts.

Court’s findings

• The proposition of law is well settled that the basis of the judgment can be taken away to render it ineffective for its applicability for the future as a precedent, in the changed law, but the judgment cannot be overturned by the parliament or the legislature.
• Even after the change in law, maybe retrospective, taking away the basis of the decision, so far as the parties to the subject are concerned, they shall ordinarily be bound by the judgment rendered in their case on its attaining finality.
• The emphasis of this Court is that there should be a law made by the parliament or the State legislature, as the case may be.
• Such law shall also be a valid law, withstanding the test of the constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 21, etc.

• The Rules framed by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not made by the Parliament or by the state legislature.
• In other words, at the stage of reconciliation, until it fails, video conferencing is not permissible for such a purpose.
• The judgment in Santhini applies with full force in the State of Andhra Pradesh as well, and is not inapplicable, as contended by the petitioner’s counsel, on account of the Andhra Pradesh High Court “Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023”.