A 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court today held that video conferencing can’t be ordered in exchange petitions. All the while, it overruled its choice in Krishna Veni Nigam, which was passed not long ago.
While Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar decided that video conferencing can be utilized simply after the settlement between parties falls flat, Justice DY Chandrachud contradicted and firmly encouraged the utilization of innovation in such procedures. The larger part judgment by CJI Dipak Misra and Justice Khanwilkar held the accompanying:
(I) In perspective of the plan of the 1984 Act and specifically Section 11, the knowledge about marital debate may be directed in camera.
(ii) After the settlement comes up short and when a joint application is documented or both the gatherings record their separate assent notice for becoming aware of the case through video conferencing under the steady gaze of the concerned Family Court, it might practice the prudence to permit the said supplication.
(iii) After the settlement falls flat, if the Family Court feels it proper having respect to the realities and conditions of the case that video conferencing will sub-serve the reason for equity, it might so immediate.
(iv) In an exchange appeal, video conferencing can’t be coordinated.
(v) Our headings might apply tentatively.
(vi) The choice in Krishna Veni Nagam (supra) is overruled to the aforementioned degree.
The case has its beginning in a request go by Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit ordering the utilization of video conferencing offices in wedding debate before documenting exchange petitions and so on. In light of the said arrange, the Supreme Court had been discarding exchange petitions without going into the benefits of such petitions.
Along these lines, another Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R Banumathi couldn’t help contradicting the said arrange, expressing that the prior Bench was not completely educated while passing the said arrange.
“Having due respect to the idea of family question looked to be tended to by the Parliament, we are perplexed, the Court in Krishna Veni Nagam (supra) has not been outfitted with the required data, previously passing the request.”
It watched that certainty and classification may not be secured in video conferencing amid such guiding sessions.
They opined that the issue requires thought by a bigger Bench and coordinated that it be set before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a suitable seat.
As per that, the issue came up for hearing under the steady gaze of the 3-judge Bench.
Amicus Curiae Ajit Kumar Sinha had submitted under the watchful eye of the 3-judge Bench that the request goes by Justices Goel and Lalit isn’t right. He had put substantial dependence on Justice DY Chandrachud’s judgment in the security case expressing that wedding procedure ought to get the insurance of protection and video conferencing encroaches on the same.
Reference-
Bar and Bench