Supreme Court · 2017 INSC 1023 · Decided 9 October 2017
Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 1023 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 557
- Case number
- TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1278/2016
- Decided
- 9 October 2017
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.M. KHANWILKAR (3-judge bench)
- Outcome
- Reference answered
- Case type
- Civil
- Acts & sections cited
- Constitution Article 139A(2), 15(3); Hindu Marriage Act Section 22, 23(2); Family Courts Act Section 11
Headnote
Family Law - Matrimonial dispute - Video conferencing - Permissibility - In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in particular s. ll, the hearing of matrimonial disputes may have to be conducted in camera - Once a settlement fails and if both the parties give consent that a witness can be A B c that can be allowed - That apart, when they give consent that it is necessary in a specific factual matrix having regard to the convenience of the parties, the Family Court may allow ·the prayer D for video coriferencing - That much of discretion can be conferred on the
Judgments are the courts' own published copies, provided for study; they are not certified copies. Source: Indian Supreme Court & High Court Judgments, Dattam Labs (CC-BY-4.0)