In Brief
This case addresses whether matrimonial disputes can be conducted through video conferencing. A majority of the Court held that while the Family Courts Act 1984 enables family courts to conduct proceedings with procedural flexibility, reconciliation efforts generally require physical presence. However, after settlement attempts fail, if both parties jointly request or consent to video conferencing, the Family Court may allow it. Importantly, video conferencing cannot be used to avoid transfer petitions. The Court overruled aspects of Krishna Veni Nagam. Justice Chandrachud's dissent argued video conferencing should be available at any stage to enhance access to justice and prevent one spouse from procrastinating, emphasizing technology as a gender-neutral facilitator rather than a barrier.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.