Madras High Court
D. Sureshkumar vs Rajasundari on 31 October, 2022
C.R.P.No.2633 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.19524 of 2021 & 2833 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
C.R.P.No.2633 of 2021
and
C.M.P.Nos.19524 of 2021 & 2833 of 2022
D. Sureshkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Rajasundari
2. S. Lakshminarayanan (Minor) ...Respondents
(2nd respondent minor represented by his
natural guardian mother and next friend,
1st respondent herein)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the impugned proceeding in pursuance of
the summons dated 31.03.2021 issued by the Family Court, Thanjavur in
Crl M.P. Nos. 55,57,59,61,65 of 021 in MC No.8 of 2021, consequently
direct the Family Court, Thanjavur, to follow the guideline of the
Supreme Court in Krishnaveninagam v. Harish Nagam, reported in
2017 ((2RCR) (Civil 358) and issue fresh summon to the petitioner
affording him opportunity to appear through video conference, and permit
him to represent the case through legal practitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Thiruneelakandan
For R1 & R2 : Mr. G. Thiyagarajan
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2633 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.19524 of 2021 & 2833 of 2022
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.8 of 2011
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur. The
respondents/petitioners filed the said petition claiming maintenance from
the present petitioner. An ex parte order dated 06.06.2014 was passed
granting maintenance to the respondents/petitioners. Subsequently the
respondents/petitioners filed CMP Nos 55,57,59,61, 63, 65 of 2021
claiming arrears of maintenance. Summons were issued to the present
revision petitioners. Challenging which the present Civil Revision Petition
is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the
decision in Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam reported in CDJ
2017 SC 275 and contended that in a matrimonial dispute, custody
matters, proceedings between parties to a marriage and arising out of
the disputes between the parties to a marriage, the courts have to take
safeguards as enumerated in the judgment. According to him, the family
court before issuing summons did not indicate the availability of video
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2633 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.19524 of 2021 & 2833 of 2022
conferencing facility and availability of legal aid service as per the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on
the decision in Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venkatesh reported in CDJ 2017 SC
1137 wherein it has been held thus:
"4. After so stating, the two-Judge Bench felt the need to
issue directions which may provide alternative to seeking
transfer of proceedings on account of inability of a party to
contest proceedings at a place away from their ordinary
residence which will eventually result in denial of justice.
The safeguards laid down in the said judgment are:-
“(i) Availability of videoconferencing facility.
(ii) Availability of legal aid service.
.....
8. ..... The two-Judge Bench referred to some of the
decisions which we have already referred to and also
adverted to Ram Gulam Pandit v. Umesh J. Prasad
and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh and opined that
all the authorities are based on the facts of the respective
cases and they do not lay down any particular law which
operates as a precedent. Thereafter, it noted that taking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2633 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.19524 of 2021 & 2833 of 2022
advantage of the leniency shown to the ladies by this
Court, number of transfer petitions are filed by women
and, therefore, it is required to consider each petition on
merit. Then, the Court dwelled upon the fact situation and
directed that the husband shall pay all travel and stay
expenses to the wife and her companion for each and every
occasion whenever she was required to attend the Court at
Delhi. From the aforesaid decision, it is quite vivid that the
Court felt that the transfer petitions are to be considered
on their own merits and not to be disposed of in a routine
manner.
...
50. The two-Judge Bench had referred to the decisions
where the affirmative rights meant for women have been
highlighted in various judgments. We have adverted to
some of them to show the dignity of woman and her rights
and the sanctity of her choice. When most of the time, a
case is filed for transfer relating to matrimonial disputes
governed by the 1984 Act, the statutory right of a woman
cannot be nullified by taking route to technological
advancement and destroying her right under a law, more
so, when it relates to family matters. In our considered
opinion, dignity of women is sustained and put on a higher
pedestal if her choice is respected. That will be in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2633 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.19524 of 2021 & 2833 of 2022
consonance with Article 15(3) of the Constitution.
....
55. Be it noted, sometimes, transfer petitions are filed
seeking transfer of cases instituted under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and cases
registered under the IPC. As the cases under the said Act
and the IPC have not been adverted to in Krishna Veni
Nagam (supra) or in the order of reference in these cases,
we do intend to advert to the same.
56. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we sum up our
conclusion as follows :-
(i) In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in particular
Section 11, the hearing of matrimonial disputes may have
to be conducted in camera.
(ii) After the settlement fails and when a joint application is
filed or both the parties file their respective consent
memorandum for hearing of the case through
videoconferencing before the concerned Family Court, it
may exercise the discretion to allow the said prayer.
(iii) After the settlement fails, if the Family Court feels it
appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case that videoconferencing will sub-serve the cause
of justice, it may so direct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2633 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.19524 of 2021 & 2833 of 2022
(iv) In a transfer petition, video conferencing cannot be
directed.
(v) Our directions shall apply prospectively.
(vi) The decision in Krishna Veni Nagam (supra) is
overruled to the aforesaid extent
Since the decision in Krishna Veni Nagam (cited supra) is
over ruled by a Three Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
present petition is liable to be dismissed and is therefore dismissed. No
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also
dismissed.
31.10.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
To
The Family Court Judge, Thanjavur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2633 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.19524 of 2021 & 2833 of 2022
R. HEMALATHA, J.
bga
C.R.P.No.2633 of 2021
and
C.M.P.Nos.19524 of 2021 & 2833 of 2022
31.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
