Video Conferencing Not Permissible For Reconciliation In Matrimonial Disputes Until Settlement Efforts Fail: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"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," Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment, held that video conferencing (VC) facilities cannot be utilized at the stage of reconciliation in matrimonial disputes.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed that personal presence is mandatory to foster a conducive environment for settlement, and virtual participation can only be considered after reconciliation efforts have officially failed. The Court emphasized that this restriction applies regardless of whether the matter is pending before a Family Court or a regular Civil Court.

The matter reached the High Court through a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner-husband, who is currently residing in Texas, USA, had challenged a trial court order that refused him permission to participate in reconciliation proceedings through virtual modes like Zoom or Skype. He contended that his inability to obtain leave from his employer made it impossible for him to attend the proceedings in person at Yellamanchili.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether video conferencing is permissible in a matrimonial proceeding specifically at the stage of reconciliation. Furthermore, the Court was called upon to determine if the "Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023," framed by the High Court, could override the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Santhini vs. Vijaya Venkatesh.

Court Reaffirms Primacy Of Personal Presence In Reconciliation

The Court noted that reconciliation is not a mere technical stage but a sensitive process requiring a sense of trust and confidentiality. Referring to the Supreme Court's majority view in Santhini vs. Vijaya Venkatesh, the bench observed that the spatial distance created by technology might "create a dent in the process of settlement." The Court highlighted that the law mandates judges and counselors to interact with parties in a manner that requires physical proximity to bridge emotional gaps.

"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."

VC Rules Cannot Overhaul Substantive Law Declared By Supreme Court

The petitioner had argued that Rule 3(i) of the 2023 VC Rules permits virtual hearings at "all stages" of judicial proceedings, thereby overriding previous restrictions. However, Justice Tilhari clarified that rules framed under Article 227 are procedural and cannot be placed at par with substantive law or judicial precedents. The Court held that "law" encompasses not just statutory enactments but also the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court under Article 141.

High Court Rules Secondary To Supreme Court Precedents

The bench explained that the 2023 Rules were framed generally to regulate video conferencing where it is otherwise permissible. These rules cannot be construed as mandating video conferencing in a manner that defeats or dilutes the mandate of the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that a procedural rule cannot alter the "sanctified right" of a party to seek in-camera, personal reconciliation proceedings as envisioned under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

"The High Court Rules cannot provide for conducting such proceedings through video conferencing in a manner that defeats or dilutes the mandate in Santhini (supra)."

Correction Of Legal Misinterpretations In Previous Coordinate Bench Rulings

The Court addressed the petitioner’s reliance on Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar vs. Nerella Akula Sowjanya, where a coordinate bench had previously allowed virtual participation. Justice Tilhari noted that the said ruling failed to consider the Supreme Court’s binding judgment in Santhini. Consequently, the Court held that it is bound to follow the law laid down by the Apex Court rather than a coordinate bench decision that is contrary to such law.

VC Permissible Only After Settlement Fails And Both Parties Consent

The High Court reiterated the strict conditions under which video conferencing may be permitted in matrimonial cases. It can only be resorted to after the Court arrives at a definite conclusion that settlement is not possible. Even at that stage, it requires either a joint application by both parties or their respective consent memoranda. The Court clarified that at the reconciliation stage, the question of consent is irrelevant as the law mandates physical presence for the initial attempt at harmony.

"At the stage of reconciliation, until it fails, video conferencing is not permissible for such purpose. The judgment in Santhini (supra) applies with full force in the State of Andhra Pradesh."

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no illegality in the trial court's order. It ruled that the 2023 VC Rules do not create an absolute right to virtual hearings in matrimonial disputes at the sensitive stage of reconciliation. The Court affirmed that maintaining the integrity of the reconciliation process requires the physical presence of both spouses to subserve the cause of justice.

Date of Decision: 30 April 2026