I value the legal opinions of the esteemed lawyers here, but for this particular question, I request only statute, directions and precedents (no opinions, please). Husband and wife are arguing a 13B divorce case on the grounds of cruelty in family court. Both want divorce and neither is contesting that part, but each is accusing the other of cruelty and requesting permanent alimony. Neither lives in the city where they were married and where they have filed for divorce. In fact one of them lives abroad and would like to participate in court proceedings (including deposition/evidence) via videoconferencing. But the other one wants to make it as inconvenient as possible and will oppose videoconferencing. The court is quite regressive and has never granted a videoconferencing request. I am looking for the relevant statutes, Supreme Court or Uttarakhand High Court directives, and precedents that can be mentioned in the videoconferencing application by the person residing abroad.
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
Though there is provision for video conferencing in divorce suit , due to lack if proper infrastructure it can not be done in most of the court rooms in India.
The supreme court in umpteen number of cases directed lower courts to encourage trial through vidoe conferencing . It would save time and remove the need for transfer of suits.
Yes there are judgements of supreme Court in which video conferencing is allowed. You can rely on the same
By amendment in Cr.P.C in 2009, a proviso was added to subsection (1) of section 275 Cr.P.C. which states as follows:
“Provided that evidence of a witness under this subsection may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of the offense”.
By analyzing this provision, we can say that taking evidence of a witness through video conferencing is permissible.
In State of Maharashtra vs Praful B Desai (Dr.),Supreme court permitted recording of evidence of witnesses staying abroad through video conferencing.
In Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu … vs State Of Maharashtra:The court permitted Kasab to appear through video conferencing.
Delhi High Court in International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) vs Madhu Bala Nath
directed courts to have a liberal and pragmatic approach in allowing the witnesses to depose through Video conferencing.
Whereas, in Santhini vs Vijaya Venketesh
The apex court held that Evidence via video conference not permissible in matrimonial cases. If both parties are not present in court, then there less possibility of emotional bond. It can create a dent in the process of settlement. Family court judge should never be the slave of the concept of a speedy trial. Reconciliation requires the presence of both parties at the same time and same place. This if permitted, can defeat the purpose of the whole act.
the Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to use modern technology such as video conferencing in cases where both parties are residing in different cities.
2)
We understand that in every district in the country, video conferencing is not available. In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilised and all high courts ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of video conferencing for certain category of cases," the SC said.
The apex court also said that in cases where one or both parties request for video conference, proceedings may be conducted through it. "Technology ought to be utilised for receiving communication from parties. We are thus of the view that it is necessary to issue certain directions which may provide alternatives to seeking transfer of proceedings on account of inability of a party to contest proceedings at a place away from their ordinary residence on the ground that if proceedings are not transferred, it will result in denial of justice," it said.
Dear Sir,
You make use of following settled law of the land as pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, various High Courts and circulars of the State govt
Lower courts to use video conferencing to hear divorce, custody cases
The Supreme Court has asked lower courts to use video-conferencing facility in divorce, custody and other matrimonial cases when the estranged couple live in different cities, an order aimed at speedy disposal of such disputes.
Disagreement between a husband and a wife over the place of hearing is one of the biggest reasons for delays in matrimonial cases.
Typically, the woman’s choice is given a priority and the case moved to the place where she lives.
But transfers can only be ordered by the Supreme Court, which is flooded with such petitions that can take years to be resolved.
“... the litigants have to travel to this court and spend on litigation. Question is whether this can be avoided,” said a bench of justice AK Goel and justice UU Lalit in the order issued last week, adding technology ought to be utilised to avoid delays in such cases.
It was not possible to ignore the problems a husband faced in contesting a case at a place convenient to the wife, the court said.
“We are thus of the view that it is necessary to issue certain directions which may provide alternatives to seeking transfer of proceedings on account of inability of a party to contest proceedings at a place away from their ordinary residence on the ground that if proceedings are not transferred, it will result in denial of justice,” it said.
Trial courts should use video-conference calls for recording evidence instead of insisting on personal appearances during hearings.
The direction came on a three-year-old transfer plea by a woman who wanted her divorce case to be moved from Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh to a court in Hyderabad, where she lived with her minor daughter. The two cities are at least 700km apart.
The case was filed in Jabalpur where her estranged husband resided.
The bench directed high courts to issue orders to regulate the use of video conferencing for trial courts.
If any or both sides ask for the facility, proceeding should be conducted through video conferencing, the court said.
Judicial process in India is painfully slow as courts are saddled with a huge backlog. At the last count, around 28 million cases were pending in various court of the country.
Divorce cases may be fought on video in future rather than in crowded courtrooms amidst strangers.
The Supreme Court said, in modern times, couples lead hectic work and personal lives with hardly any child care or family support. So, a Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit has, in a recent judgment, asked State High Courts to pass administrative directions to district and lower courts to open up their video conferencing facilities so that couples engaged in matrimonial cases need not travel distances, probably even to other States, to personally attend their divorce hearings.
The Supreme Court said video conferencing would be spare couples the drudgery of coming to courts in person, waiting for hours, probably days, to testify.
The court noted that a divorce case is usually filed in a court within which jurisdiction the husband lives or the wife lives or where the couple had their matrimonial home. In most cases, estranged couples may very well go their separate ways, probably to other States.
The Supreme Court found that the odds are usually stacked against the estranged husband when the wife prefers a transfer of the matrimonial proceedings to a court in her vicinity. When such a transfer application comes up, the courts either order the husband to foot the wife's travel and accommodation expenses or mechanically allow her plea.
The judiciary justifies that this empathy towards women are based on three factors — the constitutional scheme to provide women equal access to justice, the power of the State to make special provisions for women and children and duty to uphold the dignity of women.
However, this judgment does not fully agree with the idea of courts “mechanically” transferring cases to the wife's place of abode.
Justice Goel, who wrote the verdict for the Bench, said it is time courts also consider a man's genuine difficulties. The Bench said a technological medium like video conferencing does away with the need of transferring a matrimonial case to the wife's neighbourhood.
“The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be appropriate that available technology of video conferencing is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties,” Justice Goel wrote.
“We understand that in every district in the country video conferencing is now available. In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilised and all the High Courts ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of video conferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where one of the parties resides outside court’s jurisdiction is one of such categories,” the judgment observed.
The court said that video conferencing should be resorted to when one of the contesting parties — husband or wife — makes a request for the facility. This would “obviate the need of the party to appear in person.
The judgment is significant as it takes a different view from what the Supreme Court had in the 2006 judgment in Anindita Das versus Srijit Das. In that case, the Supreme Court had insisted that transfer of the matrimonial case to the wife's place is a must when she does not have “any male member to accompany her to the matrimonial proceedings”.
Dear Querist
In case of Sucha Singh v. Ajmer Singh & Anr, the Petitioner to be a material witness, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed examination of the witness through video-conferencing via WhatsApp, Skype or similar other applications.
In this case, the Petitioner resides in the USA and is a material witness in a case pending in Ludhinana, Punjab. In view of the circumstances, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana had earlier allowed the Petitioner to depose in the case through video-conferencing. However, the Court had directed that Petitioner/ witness will go to some local authority where such facility is available. Alternately, the petitioner will identify the Indian Consulate in the nearest place from his residence and produce the Court order to secure the permission for hearing and that the petitioner shall make himself available during the Court working hours in India.
In view of the time difference in India and USA, the High Court has now stated there was no necessity for the Petitioner to approach the Consulate as the Video Conferencing facility is now available at Computer and the Mobile and so many applications are available like Facetime, WhatsApp, Skype and other similar applications.
The Court has further noted that as the evidence is material to the decision of the case, the Petitioner Sucha Singh can examine himself by way of Video Conferencing through Mobile or Computer on an application, which shall be intimated to the trial Court and which shall be installed on the Computer, Laptop or I Pad.
In recent times, a wave of technological advancement has been witnessed and the Judiciary has welcomed the use of technology and social media applications like Skype and WhatsApp in prosecution of cases. This is a commendable move as it ensures speedy justice
Feel Free to Call
If lower court is not permitting video conferencing, get the directions from SC. Sec 13B is mutual divorce,where is the need of video conferencing arised.
There are various guidelines given time to time by Supreme court, various high courts etc. regarding the recording of evidence through video conferencing. Law applicable to them will be the same as applicable to evidence recorded in courts normally, including 272 to 283 Cr.P.C. and Order 16, 18 etc. C.P.C. with some changes to avoid some technical issues.
By amendment in Cr.P.C in 2009, a proviso was added to subsection (1) of section 275 Cr.P.C. which states as follows:
“Provided that evidence of a witness under this subsection may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of the offense”.
By analyzing this provision, we can say that taking evidence of a witness through video conferencing is permissible.
By observing various guideline of various high courts and supreme court (2 & 3)also, it is clear that evidence can be taken through video conferencing.
In State of Maharashtra vs Praful B Desai (Dr.)
Supreme court permitted recording of evidence of witnesses staying abroad through video conferencing.
Generally, all the courts have a liberal approach towards allowing recording of evidence through video conferencing. Unless there were special reasons to deny it, courts are always willing to adopt the technology for the betterment of all. By evaluating various cases where courts admitted and denied an application for recording evidence through video conferencing, we can say that, unless it is a mandatory condition of law or a written and valid contract among parties that parties must appear physically it must be allowed by the courts. In any other such circumstances where the court considers that if the recording of evidence through video conferencing is allowed, it will defeat the purpose of the law or procedure established by law, the court can deny it.
Dear client
Sorry but For divorce of 13 B personal presence of party is mandatory provision so you will not get any directives or precedents over this videoconferencing issue.
