In a significant ruling, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision to deny a husband’s request for virtual appearance in a matrimonial dispute. The court emphasized that reconciliation requires the physical presence of both parties, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018). The judgment underscores the importance of direct engagement in matrimonial conciliation and reinforces the principle that family court proceedings should be conducted in-person for effective resolution.
Case Background
The dispute arose between Mohammad Razik Shaik (Petitioner/Husband) and Sufia Sultana Bano Mohammad (Respondent/Wife), following their marriage on December 5, 2020, in Hyderabad. The husband, working in Canada, allegedly withdrew from the marital relationship and later filed a divorce petition in Canada’s Superior Court of Justice, Oshawa, Toronto on May 3, 2022, despite their marriage being governed by Indian law.
In response, the wife filed F.C.O.P. No. 1313 of 2022 before the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She contended that her husband misrepresented facts in the Canadian court and sought to evade legal obligations under Indian matrimonial law.
During the proceedings, the husband filed I.A. No. 742 of 2024, seeking permission to attend the reconciliation process via video conferencing, citing work-related travel restrictions from Canada. However, the wife opposed the request, arguing that virtual reconciliation would not be effective and that her in-laws, who resided with the husband, might influence the proceedings.
The Family Court rejected the husband’s plea, ruling that reconciliation must be conducted in person, prompting the husband to challenge the decision in the Andhra Pradesh High Court under CRP No. 2619 of 2024.
Important Legal Issues
The High Court examined the following key legal questions:
1. Can reconciliation proceedings in matrimonial disputes be conducted via video conferencing?
2. Does video conferencing for reconciliation require the consent of both parties?
3. Does virtual reconciliation uphold the principles of confidentiality and fairness in family court proceedings?
Key Observations of the Court
1. Reconciliation Requires Physical Presence
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018), which held:
“Reconciliation requires presence of both parties at the same place and time to be effectively conducted. The spatial distance will distant the possibility of reconciliation because the Family Court Judge would not be in a position to interact with the parties in the manner the law commands.”
The court observed that reconciliation demands an environment of trust, confidentiality, and personal engagement, which cannot be replicated in a virtual setting.
2. Mutual Consent is Mandatory for Virtual Reconciliation
The High Court emphasized that per Santhini (2018):
“After the settlement fails and when a joint application is filed or both parties file their respective consent memorandum, the Family Court may exercise discretion to allow virtual hearings.”
Since the wife did not consent to video conferencing, the husband’s request was legally untenable.
3. Confidentiality and Emotional Connection in Reconciliation
Justice Tilhari stressed that video conferencing might hinder effective reconciliation, particularly when:
– One party is pressured or influenced by third parties present during the virtual session.
– The Family Court Judge cannot directly assess emotional expressions and body language, which are crucial in reconciliation efforts.
– Virtual reconciliation may “create a dent in the process of settlement” as observed by the Supreme Court.
Decision of the Court
After reviewing the legal precedents and the Family Court’s reasoning, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 2619 of 2024), upholding the lower court’s order.
Final Verdict:
1. Virtual reconciliation proceedings in matrimonial disputes are impermissible unless both parties consent.
2. Personal presence is mandatory for reconciliation, ensuring confidentiality, fairness, and judicial efficacy.
3. Video conferencing may only be permitted after reconciliation attempts fail, subject to the consent of both parties.
