Mrs. Divya Vysapeetam v. The Family Court

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELA,NGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 968 OF 2020 Petition under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia, against the order dated 3010712020 in FCOP.No.692 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Family Court Judge City Civil Courts at Secundrabad Between:

'1 . Mrs. Divya Vysapeetam, D/o Sri Raghuram Vyasapeetam W/o. Mr Piyush Kalia Aged 33 years, Occ Service, Pmt R/o. Hyderabad presently residing at No.B, Siri Mallige Flat No.204, 3'" cross Street, R.S Palya, Kammanahalli N/ain Road, Bengaluru ' Karnataka ....pETrroNER No.1

2. Mr Piyush Kalia, S/o. Mr. Sushil Kalia Aged about 35 years, Occ Service Permanent resident of Flal402 EaslWest Society Plot 99 Sector 54 Golf Course Road Gurugram 122011 Haryana Presently residing at No. 4-805, Purva West End Apartments Hongasandra, Near Kudlu Gate Bengaluru, Karnataka ...PETITIONER No.2 AND The Family Court, City Civil Court Secunderabad Office Of the Zonal Commissioner, Opposite West Marredpally lvlain Rd. West Marredpally. Secunderabad, Telangana 500026 ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 'l OF 2020 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with tiling of the certified copy of order/direction dated 3010712020 of the Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad as the same is issued via email in the interest of justice, Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT ANITA AHUJA Counsel for the Respondent:--- The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CRP.No.968 of 2O2O oRDERI This Revision is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the inaction of the Family Court Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, in disposing of FCOP.No .692 of 2019 by video conference even though the parties intend to dissolve their marriage through a consent divorce under Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2.

Initially when a request appears to have been made by e-mail by the counsel for parties in the OP on 3O.O7.2O2O, the Court below stated in a reply e-mail that the online evidence aflidavit of the 2"d petitioner is not legible, and that evidence affidavits have to be filed physically when the parties appear before the Court along with the Advocate for giving evidence.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, clear and neat evidence affidavits of both the parties were once again uploaded for consideration of the Family Court Judge on ),2.O9.2O2O, but the Judge again sent an e-mail on 14.O9.2O2O stating the following:

Counselling of parties is mandatory after expiry of six months cooling period. If parties do not appear physically how this Court can do conciliation.

Petitioner relied on a decision wherein the party was represented by General Power of Attorney holder. Herein the present case. parties are appearing personally. lf evidence is taken through video conference how the signatures of parties shall be obtained on evidence affidavits after marking of exhibits.

If evidence is taken through video conference who will sign in the witness register in proof of recording evidence by this Court.

If the evidence is taken through video conference how the counsel can identify the parties and endorse on evidence effidvits."

4. In view of the COVID-l9 pandemic, this Court had issued Circular ROC.No.394/SO/2O2O dt.10.08.2020 limiting the regular judicial work in the Sub-ordinate Courts and Tribuna-ls in the State of Telangana but permitted all the .ludicial Officers in the State to take up hearing of cases of certain categories, such as cheque petitions and applications filed under Section 138 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking Divorce by mutual consent, through video conferencing.

5. In a judgment rendered by this Court reported Seelam Prameela v. Ganta Mani Kumarr it was heid that evidence in matrimonial proceedings can be recorded through video conferencing.

'cDJ20tgtsHcatz

6.

Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v Harveen Kaur2 wherein the Supreme Court had taken the view that Section 13B proceedings can be taken up through the medium of video conferencing.

7. Though the Court below has stated that conciliation shouid once again be done after the expiry of the mandate period of 6 months cooling period, it is not necessary that such efforts of conciliation ought to be made only physically when the parties appear, and it can certainly be done through video conferencing because the parties' photographs are an)'way filed along with the 13B petition and their respective counsel will identify them.

8.

The Court below also expressed an apprehension that if evidence is taken through video conferencing, how the signatures of the parties can be obtained on evidence affidavit after marking of exhibits and who will sign in the witness register 1n proof of recording of evidence by the Court. It also stated that counsel cannot identify the parties and endorse on evidence affidavits.

' col 20t? sc tos?

I

9. In my considered opinion, these technical objections cannot come in the way of taking up the proceedings between the parties herein under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 when the Supreme Court and this Court have held that proceedings under Section 13B can also be done by video conferencing. The Family Court Judge cannot insist that she will not follow the decisions of the High Court and Supreme court and would record the proceedings only physically and not through video conferencing.

10. A11 procedures are only a handmaid of justice and procedural or technical issues cannot be allowed to defeat substantive justice.

1 1. The evidence a,ffidavits of the parties can be got notarized and then uploaded for consideration of the Court with the photographs of the parties pasted on them, and these photographs can be compared with the photographs already affixed on the 13B petition filed by the parties, so that the identity of the parties can be ensured. Also the counsel's statements identifying the parties can be recorded in the order, which the Family Court Judge would pass. The requirement of the signing in the witness register in proof of recording evidence by the Court has to be dispensed with, and the statement of the Presiding Officer about such

l recording itself would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances.

12. Therefore, the Family Court Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, is directed to take up FCOP. No.692 of 2Ol9 filed under Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and proceed to consider the matter ald pass appropriate orders within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

13. The CRP is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

14. Consequentiy, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

SD/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// V SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Family Court Judge City Civil Courts at Secundrabad. (By Special Messenger) 2 One CC to Smt. Anita Ahuja, Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CD Copies \ A*-

HIGH COURT MSR,J DATED:1810912020 14:

1HE S 14 c J ( o 2 5 stP 2u0 o { i+ t PATCH * (o a

ORDER

CRP.No.968 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS N\)t @ >4