The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that video conferencing is not permissible during the reconciliation stage of matrimonial proceedings, even in cases where a party resides abroad. The judgment clarifies that judicial technology must yield to statutory mandates on confidentiality and the imperative of personal presence in settlement efforts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bheemisetti Suryanarayana, filed a matrimonial suit (H.M.O.P. No. 35 of 2023) before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yellamanchili, seeking divorce. He is currently residing in Texas, USA, and sought permission to participate in court-ordered reconciliation proceedings via video conferencing (Zoom, WhatsApp, or Skype) due to employment constraints preventing his travel to India.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is employed in the United States and was denied leave by his employer to return to India for court proceedings.
- He filed I.A. No. 457 of 2024 on 15.07.2024 seeking permission to appear virtually during reconciliation.
- The respondent-wife opposed the application, arguing that personal attendance is essential for meaningful reconciliation.
- The petitioner’s father appeared as his General Power of Attorney holder in court on 25.10.2024 and stated that the petitioner intended to travel to India in April 2025.
- The Trial Court dismissed the application on 24.10.2025, holding that the petitioner’s ability to plan a future visit negated the necessity for virtual participation.
Procedural History
- 15.07.2024: I.A. No. 457 of 2024 filed seeking video conferencing for reconciliation.
- 24.10.2025: Trial Court dismissed the application, relying on Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar v. Nerella Akula Sowjanya and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh.
- 28.02.2026: Civil Revision Petition No. 311 of 2026 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 227.
- 30.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Argued that Rule 3(i) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2023 permits video conferencing at all stages of judicial proceedings, including reconciliation.
- Relied on Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar (2019), where the High Court permitted Skype participation for reconciliation.
- Contended that Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018) is distinguishable as it pertained to Family Courts, whereas the present case is before a Civil Court.
- Asserted that the Rules, 2023, framed under Article 227, override prior judicial precedents in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
For the Respondent
- Maintained that reconciliation under the Hindu Marriage Act and Family Courts Act requires physical presence to ensure confidentiality, emotional engagement, and judicial assessment of sincerity.
- Argued that Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh is binding under Article 141 and applies to all matrimonial proceedings, regardless of forum.
- Emphasized that Rule 3(i) of the Rules, 2023, cannot override statutory mandates under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which requires in-camera proceedings.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 24.10.2025 and a direction permitting his participation in reconciliation proceedings via video conferencing.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether video conferencing is permissible at the stage of reconciliation in matrimonial proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, despite the existence of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the Rules, 2023, framed under Article 227, explicitly permit video conferencing at all stages of judicial proceedings, including reconciliation. He cited Rule 3(i), which states that "Video conferencing facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings," and Rule 2(iv), defining "Court" to include virtual courts. He argued that since the Rules are procedural and issued under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, they supersede prior judicial interpretations inconsistent with them. He further contended that Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh is inapplicable because it arose from a transfer petition under the Family Courts Act, whereas the present case is before a Civil Court. He also argued that Mohammad Razik Shaik v. Sufia Sultana (2025) was rendered per incuriam for failing to consider the Rules, 2023.
For the Respondent
The respondent countered that the Rules, 2023, cannot override statutory provisions or binding judicial precedents. She emphasized that Section 11 of the Family Courts Act mandates in-camera proceedings, and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act imposes a statutory duty on courts to attempt reconciliation. She relied on Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, where the Supreme Court held that video conferencing is permissible only after reconciliation fails, and only upon joint application or consent memoranda. She argued that the Rules, 2023, are procedural and cannot alter substantive rights or statutory mandates. She further contended that Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar was rendered without reference to Santhini and is therefore not binding.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between statutory law, judicial precedent, and procedural rules. It began by affirming that Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh is a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution, and its holding - that video conferencing is impermissible during reconciliation - is not confined to Family Courts but applies to all matrimonial proceedings, whether before a Civil Court or a Family Court.
"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 Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Rules, 2023, could override Santhini. It held that rules framed under Article 227(2)(b) are subject to the proviso that they "shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of any law for the time being in force." The Family Courts Act, 1984, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, constitute such law. The Supreme Court’s interpretation in Santhini is itself a binding declaration of law under Article 141.
The Court further clarified that the expression "law" in Article 227 includes judicial precedents, as affirmed in Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy. Therefore, the Rules, 2023, cannot permit video conferencing at the reconciliation stage without violating the statutory and constitutional framework established by Santhini.
The Court also dismissed the argument that Mohammad Razik Shaik was per incuriam. It held that a coordinate bench is not required to declare a prior judgment per incuriam if it is directly contrary to a binding Supreme Court precedent. In such cases, the higher precedent prevails.
The Court emphasized that the purpose of reconciliation is not merely procedural but deeply personal and confidential. Virtual participation, while technologically feasible, risks undermining the emotional and psychological dynamics essential to reconciliation. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Santhini had explicitly warned against allowing technological convenience to erode the sanctity of marital dispute resolution.
Finally, the Court held that the Rules, 2023, are valid and applicable, but only to stages of proceedings where video conferencing is otherwise legally permissible - such as after reconciliation fails, or for evidence recording, where the parties consent.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the order dated 24.10.2025 dismissing the application for video conferencing during reconciliation. It held that video conferencing in matrimonial proceedings is permissible only after reconciliation has failed, and only upon a joint application or consent memoranda from both parties, as per Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reconciliation Requires Physical Presence
- Practitioners must advise clients that virtual attendance during court-ordered reconciliation is not permitted under Indian law, regardless of geographical distance or employment constraints.
- Applications for video conferencing at this stage will be dismissed unless reconciliation has already failed.
Rules Cannot Override Statutory or Constitutional Law
- High Court procedural rules under Article 227 cannot override substantive provisions of statutes like the Family Courts Act or binding Supreme Court judgments.
- Lawyers must verify whether a procedural rule conflicts with a statutory mandate before relying on it.
Santhini Applies Universally Across Forums
- The Santhini test applies equally to proceedings before Family Courts and Civil Courts dealing with matrimonial disputes.
- Arguments distinguishing Santhini on the basis of forum (Family Court vs. Civil Court) will not succeed.
Precedents Must Be Reviewed in Light of Binding Authority
- Judgments like Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar, rendered before Santhini, are no longer good law if they conflict with a subsequent binding Supreme Court ruling.
- Courts are not obligated to declare prior judgments per incuriam; they may simply decline to follow them if they contradict higher authority.
