Summary
In matrimonial and child-custody transfer proceedings, the Court questioned the use of video conferencing pursuant to Krishna Veni Nagam without sufficient consideration of statutory reconciliation duties and confidentiality. It referred reconsideration of those directions to a larger Bench. This order did not finally decide the transfer petitions or establish a final prohibition on video conferencing.
Issues
- Whether the video-conferencing directions in Krishna Veni Nagam required reconsideration in light of the special statutory scheme for family disputes.
Provisions considered
- Sections 6, 9, 11 and 12, Family Courts Act, 1984Counsellors, settlement efforts, privacy and expert assistance inform the special procedure in family disputes. (¶ 7–10)
- Sections 22, 23 and 26, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Privacy, reconciliation and consideration of children’s wishes were relevant to reconsidering remote proceedings. (¶ 11–14)
- Order XXXIIA, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Requires efforts towards settlement where consistent with the circumstances. (¶ 15–16)
Held
- Family adjudication requires proactive efforts towards reconciliation and assistance by counsellors and welfare experts. The Court considered that these statutory requirements had not sufficiently been brought to the coordinate Bench’s notice. (¶ 17–18)
- Confidentiality of reconciliation, the place of recorded footage, physical interaction and ascertainment of children’s wishes raised serious concerns about the earlier video-conferencing directions. These concerns warranted larger-Bench consideration. (¶ 19–20)
Result
Matter referred to a larger Bench; Registry directed to place the papers before the Chief Justice of India with a request for expeditious constitution of the Bench.