After settlement fails, Family Courts may permit video-conferenced evidence with both parties’ consent.

The parties had filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Ravikant sought permission to give his statement through video conferencing because he was required to travel to Kenya for professional work.

The Family Court rejected the request, relying on Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, (2018) 1 SCC 1.

Both parties then approached the High Court challenging that rejection; the High Court noted that it was unclear whether both had consented to video conferencing.

1. Whether the Family Court’s rejection of Ravikant’s request for video-conference testimony, based on Santhini, required reconsideration where both parties had approached the High Court challenging that order.

2. Whether permission for video-conference testimony could be considered on a fresh application supported by the consent of both parties.

Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act contemplates that matrimonial proceedings may be heard in camera.

In Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, the Supreme Court held that, after settlement fails, a Family Court may exercise discretion to permit video-conference hearings where both parties jointly apply or submit consent memoranda; it may also direct video conferencing where, in the circumstances, doing so would serve the cause of justice.

Consent does not itself compel permission; the Family Court retains discretion.

The High Court considered the Family Court’s reliance on Santhini and clarified that the decision permits video conferencing when both parties consent, subject to the Family Court’s discretion.

Although both parties had joined in challenging the rejection, the record did not establish their consent to recording Ravikant’s statement by video conference.

The High Court therefore did not grant permission directly, but held that the request warranted fresh consideration upon a properly supported application.

The Family Court was directed to reconsider that application in light of Santhini, particularly paragraphs 58.2 and 58.3.

No permission for video-conference testimony was granted by the High Court itself.