The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that video conferencing is not a permissible mode for reconciliation in matrimonial proceedings until such efforts at settlement have officially failed. The Court clarified that the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s declaration in Santhini vs. Vijaya Venkatesh remains unaltered by the state’s 2023 Video Conferencing Rules.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a matrimonial dispute (H.M.O.P. No. 35 of 2023) pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yellamanchili. The petitioner (husband), currently residing in Texas, USA, had filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 457 of 2024) seeking permission to appear for reconciliation proceedings through virtual modes such as Zoom, WhatsApp, or Skype. He contended that his employer had denied him leave to travel to India.
The Trial Court dismissed the application, noting that the petitioner had previously indicated he would visit India in April 2025, suggesting he was capable of travel. Challenging this, the husband filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B. Abhay Siddanth Mootha argued that in an era of technological advancement, the Trial Court’s refusal was unsustainable. He relied heavily on the “Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023” applicable to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He specifically pointed to Rule 3(i), which states that video conferencing may be used at “all stages of judicial proceedings.”
The petitioner contended that:
- Matrimonial proceedings are judicial in nature, and reconciliation is a stage within them.
- The High Court Rules, framed under Article 227, are binding on subordinate courts.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Santhini (supra) is inapplicable because the 2023 Rules have now changed the legal landscape in Andhra Pradesh.
- The previous coordinate bench decision in Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar vs. Nerella Akula Sowjanya (2019) had permitted Skype for reconciliation.
The Respondent’s Position: The respondent/wife opposed the plea, asserting that no bona fide reasons were shown and that the petitioner must attend reconciliation in person to maintain the sanctity of the process.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari framed the primary question as whether video conferencing is permissible at the stage of reconciliation.
On the Mandate of Santhini vs. Vijaya Venkatesh: The Court referred extensively to the majority view in Santhini, where the Supreme Court observed:
“The reconciliation requires presence of both the parties at the same place and the same time so as 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 as the law commands.”
The High Court emphasized that the Supreme Court had explicitly ruled that video conferencing can only be resorted to after settlement fails, and even then, primarily upon a joint application or mutual consent.
On the 2023 Video Conferencing Rules: Addressing the petitioner’s argument that the 2023 Rules superseded the Santhini judgment, the Court held that the High Court’s rule-making power under Article 227 cannot override statutory law or Supreme Court declarations. The Court noted:
“The Rules 2023 framed in the exercise of power under Article 227 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India can neither provide nor can be construed as providing for Video Conferencing in matrimonial dispute at the stage of reconciliation, otherwise that would be inconsistent with the law for the time being in force… and the Law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Santhini.”
The Court clarified that the expression “law” in the proviso to Article 227(2) includes judicial precedents of the Supreme Court. Therefore, any rule inconsistent with a Supreme Court judgment (binding under Article 141) would be invalid to that extent.
On Forum Distinction (Civil Court vs. Family Court): The petitioner argued that Santhini applied only to Family Courts. The High Court rejected this, stating:
“This position holds good irrespective of whether the proceedings are before a Civil Court or a Family Court. No distinction can be drawn regarding the applicability of Santhini (supra) based on the forum.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that at the stage of reconciliation—until it fails—video conferencing is not permissible. The Court found the Trial Court’s order perfectly justified in law.
The Court further noted that the coordinate bench decision in Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar did not consider the Santhini judgment and thus could not be followed as a binding precedent over the Supreme Court’s law. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Bheemisetti Suryanarayana vs. Bheemisetti Mrudula Naga Bhavani
- Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 311 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
- Date: 30.04.2026
