SANTHINI versus VJJAYA VENKETESH

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 09-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 547 
SANTHINI 
v. 
VJJAYA VENKETESH 
(Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1278 of2016) 
AUGUST 09, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
FamiZv Law - Transfer petition - Petitioner sought transfer 
of divorce petition and application for custody of minor child from 
the Family Court, Kera/a to Family Court, Tamil Nadu - Respondent 
husband relied on decision rendered by coordinate bench in *Krishna 
Vent Nagam and requested that there was no need to transfer the 
case and instead parties could be directed to avail the facility of 
video conferencing as suggested in the said decision - Held: To 
what an extent the confidence and confidentiality will be 
safeguarded and protected in video conferencing, particularly when 
efforts are taken by the counsellors; welfare experts, andfor that 
matter, the court itself for reconciliation, restitution of conjugal rights 
or dissolution of marriage, ascertainment of the wishes of the child 
in custody matters, etc., is a serious issue to be considered - It is 
certainly difficult in video conferencing to maintain confidentiality 
- Footage in video conferencing becomes part of the record whereas 
the reconciliatory efforts taken by the duty-holders are not meant 
to be part of the record - Rather, physical presence of the parties 
would make a significant difference - Having regard to the very 
object behind the establishment of Family Courts Act, 1984 and to 
Order XXXIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure and to the special 
provisions introduced in the Hindu Marriage Act under ss.22, 23 
and 26, the directions issued by the Court in Krishna Veni Nagam 
case need reconsideration on the aspect of video conferencing in 
matrimonial disputes - Therefore matter refen·ed to larger bench -
Reference to larger bench. 
*Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam (2017) 4 SCC · 
150 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
c2011) 4 sec 150 
referred to 
Para3 
547 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 
1278 of2016. 
Under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
WITH 
B 
T. P. (C) No. 422 of2017. 
c 
V. K. Sidharthan, S. Sreedharan, Ms. Sridevi V. S., Ad vs. for the 
Petitioner. 
Rishi Malhotra, Adv. for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was passed: 
ORDER 
I. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for transfer 
of O.P.(HMA) No.580 of 2015 filed for dissolution of marriage of the 
respondent and petitioner and O.P. No.1282of2012 filed for custody of 
D 
minor child, from the Court ofFamily Court,Alappuzha, Kerala to Family 
Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. 
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, 
learned counsel appearing for the respondent brought to our notice a 
decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Krishna Veni 
E 
Nagam v. Harish Nagaml and requested that there is no need to transfer 
the cases; instead parties can be directed to avail the facility of video 
conferencing, as suggested by this Court in the case referred to above. 
3. In Krishna Veni Nagam (supra) a coordinate Bench of this 
Court went into the issue of preventing the backlog of transfer petitions 
F 
before the Co.urts. It appears that the Court also had the assistance of 
an amicus. Having heard the learned Counsel on both the sides and 
learned amicus, the Court finally, at paragraph-18, issued the following 
directions:-
"18. We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters 
G 
or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of 
disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/ 
respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the 
court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it 
is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for 
H 
I (2017) 4 soc 150 
SANTHINI v. VIJAYA VENKETESH 
549 
ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result 
A 
in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be 
sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:-
i) Availability of video conferencing facility. 
ii) Availability oflegal aid service. 
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of 
Order XXV CPC. 
iv) E-mail address/phone number, ifany, at which litigant from 
out station may communicate." 
B 
4. We are informed that not only this Court but the High Courts 
C 
and even the District Courts are passing orders in the light of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.