In Brief
This case concerns whether video conferencing should replace physical presence in matrimonial and child custody disputes before Family Courts. The petitioner sought to transfer divorce and custody cases from Kerala to Tamil Nadu, but the respondent urged video conferencing instead. The Court held that video conferencing is unsuitable for family matters because reconciliation—a statutory mandate—requires physical presence, personal interaction, and confidential engagement with counsellors and welfare experts. The Court found that video conferencing footage becomes part of the formal record, compromising confidentiality essential to reconciliatory efforts. The Court doubted prior guidance in Krishna Veni Nagam and referred the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.