T SHANTHI Vs. PUSHPARAJ FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Husband had filed an application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, seeking for permission to record the evidence by way of Videoconferencing which came to be allowed, challenging which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) The grievance of the wife, who is the petitioner herein, is that the procedure contemplated for disposing of matrimonial dispute is that it is mandatory for the parties to be referred to conciliation talks, in view of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act 1984 and since there was no conciliation or talks of settlement initiated between the parties, the Court below ought not to have permitted the petitioner to participate in the proceedings through videoconferencing.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venkatesh, 2018 1 SCC 1) submitted that the videoconferencing cannot be permitted in the absence of any consent from both the parties and as such, through an application filed by one of the parties alone, permission granted by the Court below by videoconferencing, is opposed to the said Judgment.