#video conferencing

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC cannot succeed based solely on the petitioner's apprehension of judicial bias unless supported by prima facie evidence. The judgment underscores the need for substantive proof to challenge procedural fairness in matrimonial disputes, impacting litigants seeking case transfers.

Andhra Pradesh High Court reinforces that matrimonial reconciliation under the Family Courts Act requires in-person attendance, citing statutory confidentiality and the sanctity of personal interaction. Video conferencing may only be permitted post-failure of settlement, ensuring procedural integrity in sensitive family disputes.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the availability of video conferencing under Uttar Pradesh's 2020 Court Rules removes any legitimate claim of inconvenience as a basis for transferring Domestic Violence Act cases between districts. This affirms that digital access is a constitutionally sufficient substitute for physical presence, reshaping how litigants across Uttar Pradesh can pursue justice without relocating proceedings.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that a parent may deposit a forfeited surety amount on behalf of their child who is abroad, provided the surety consents and appears through video conferencing. This clarifies procedural flexibility under BNSS for families navigating cross-border legal obligations, ensuring bail forfeiture mechanisms remain enforceable without requiring physical presence.

Delhi High Court holds that elderly accused with serious health conditions cannot be compelled to appear personally in Section 138 NI Act cases without due regard to medical evidence and alternative arrangements.