SANTHINI v. VIJAYA VENKETESH

in view convenience of the wife expressed concern for difficulties faced by litigants travelling to Supreme Court and posed the question whether there was possibility to avoid the same. The question formulated therein was whether the court should entertain such transfer petition only on the condition that the husband makes appropriate deposit to bear the expenses of the wife as may be determined by the Court so that the wife is not handicapped to defend the proceedings. The pivotal concern of the Court was whether an order could be passed so as to provide a better alternative to each individual who is compelled to move Supreme Court. The Court made certain references to the doctrine of 'forum non conveniens' and held that it can be applied to matrimonial proceedings for advancing the interest of justice. The Court further observed that if the proceedings are transferred to place which is convenient to the woman, the problem which are then faced by the husband cannot be ignored and thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties. The Court further noted that it may be appropriate that available technology of video conferencing is used where both parties h.ave equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties. The Krishna Veni Nigam case was brought to the notice of the two-Judge Bench in the instant case titled Santlti11i v. Vijaya Venketesh. The two-Judge Bench held that to what an extent the confidence and confidentiality will be safeguarded and protected in video conferencing, particularly when efforts are taken by the counsellors, welfare experts, and for that matter, the court itself for reconciliation, restitution of conjugal rights or dissolution of marriage, ascertainment of the wishes of the child in custody matters, etc., is a serious issue to be considered; that it is certainly difficult in video conferencing to maintain confidentiality; that footage in video conferencing becomes part of the record whereas the reconciliatory efforts taken by the duty-holders are not meant to be part of the record. The two-Judge Bench held that the directions issued by the Court in Krishna Veni Nagam case needed reconsideration on the aspect of video conferencing in matrimonial disputes. The matter was referred to larger bench and that is how matter was placed before this three-Judge Bench. A B c D E F G H SANTHINI v. VUAYA VENKETESH Answering the reference, the Court HELD: Per Dipak Misra, CJI (For himself and Khanwilkar, J.)

#1. The Supreme Court has been conferred with the power by the Constitution under Article 139A(2) to transfer the cases and has also been conferred statutory jurisdiction to transfer the cases. The Court has the power to allow the petition seeking transfer. or to decline the prayer and indubitably, it is on consideration of the merits of the case and satisfaction of the Court on that score. [Para 10](591-F-G]

2.1 Legislative purpose behind Family Courts Act, 1984: The preamble of the 1984 Act provides for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. [Para 12][594-D] 565 A B c D

2.2 Role of Family Court .Judge: A Family Court Judge has to be very sensitive to the cause before it and he/she should be conscious about timely delineation and not procrastinate the matter as delay has the potentiality to breed bitterness that eventually corrodes the emotions. The Court has been extremely cautious while stating about patience as a needed quality for E arriving at a settlement and the need for speedy settlement and, if not possible, proceeding with meaningful adjudication. There must be efforts for reconciliation, but the time spent in the said process has to have its own limitation. The legislative intent, the schematic purpose and the role attributed to the Family Court have to be perceived with a sense of sanctity. [Paras 14, 16](595- E-F; 596-E-F] F Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and others (2015) 6 SCC 353 : [2014) 8 SCR 858 - relied on. K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida (2003) 4 SCC 166 : [2003] 3 SCR 498; Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 sec 705 - referred to. 2.3 Fundamental intent of scheme of the 1984 Act: The 1984 Act, to achieve its purpose, conceives of involvement of institutions or organizations engaged in social welfare or their H G 566 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 12 S.C.R. representatives and professionals engaged in promoting the welfare of the family so that, if required, the Family Court can take their assistance to exercise its jurisdiction in an effective manner. (Para 17) [596-G-H; 597-A-B) B D

2.3 Jurisdiction of Family Court: The jurisdiction conferred on the Family Court is quite extensive. It confers power in a Family Court to exercise jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law relating to a suit or a proceeding between the parties to a marriage or a decree of a nullity of marriage declaring the marriage to be null and void or annulling the marriage, as the case may be, or restitution of C conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage and also the power to entertain a proceeding with respect to the property of the parties to a marriage or either of them. The Family Court has the jurisdiction to pass an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship, declare legitimacy of any person and deal with proceedings for grant of maintenance, guardianship of the person or the custody of or access to any minor. That apart, it has also been conferred the authority to deal with the applications for grant of maintenance for wife and children and parents as provided under the CrPC. Section 9 prescribes the duty of the Family Court to make efforts for settlement by rendering assistance and persuading the parties for arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding. For the said purpose, it may follow the procedure laid down by the High Court. If in any suit or proceeding, at any stage, it appears to the Family Court that there is a reasonable opportunity of settlement between the parties, it may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement. [Paras 18, 19)(597-C-H] E F

3.1 Section 11 provides for proceedings to be held in G camera. A plain reading of Section 11 shows that if the Family Court desires, the proceedings should be held in camera and it shall be so held if either of the parties so desires. A reading of the said provision indicates that, once one party makes a prayer for holding the proceedings in camera, it is obligatory on the part of the Family Court to do so. (Para 20)(598-A-C] H SANTHINI v. VIJAYA VENKETESH 567

3.2 Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides A for proceedings to be in camera and stipulates that the proceeding may not be printed or published. Section 23(2) of the 1955 Act enjoins that before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible to do so consistently with the nature and B circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. The said provision is not applicable to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in clause (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) or (vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 13. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 permits the Court to take aid of a person named by the parties or of any C person nominated by the Court to bring out a resolution. [Paras 22, 23J(598-D-H; 599-A]

3.3 Section 26 of the 1955 Act deals with custody of children. It empowers the court, from time to time, to pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem D just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children consistently with their wishes, · .wherever possible. In a matter relating to the custody of the child, the welfare of the child is paramount and seminal. The interest of the child in all circumstances remains vital and the Court has a very affirmative role in that regard. [Paras 24-25] [599-B, E] E Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka (2011) 15 SCC 330 : [2011] 11 SCR 870 - distinguished