Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • 1984 Act and in particular Section 11,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • 1984 Act and in particular Section 11,
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    SMT. SANDHYA SAINI v. KAPIL BADHOULIYA

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

    AT JABALPUR

    BEFORE

    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 REVIEW PETITION No. 938 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

    SMT. SANDHYA SAINI W/O KAPIL BADHOLIYA,

    AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

    HOUSEWIFE R/O MISHRA JI SATAI ROAD

    NEAR PEETAMBARA MANDIR CHHATARPUR

    POST OFFICE CHHATARPUR (M P)

    .....PETITIONER

    (BY SHRI BRAMHANAND PANDEY - ADVOCATE )

    AND

    KAPIL BADHOULIYA S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH

    KUMAR BADHOULIYA, AGED ABOUT 34

    YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONTRACT SERVICE

    PUMP OPERATOR NAGAR PARIUSHAD ..R/O

    BADHOULIYA MOHALLA PAWAI DISTRICT

    PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

    ....RESPONDENT

    This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:

    ORDER

    This review petition has been preferred against the order dated 02.08.2023 passed in MCC No.1614/23 whereby instead of transferring

    1

    - 2 -

    the matter, the petitioner was permitted to appear before the concerning Court through video conferencing.

    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of decision of Supreme Court in the case of Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1 (para 58), in a transfer petition, video conferencing cannot be directed and unless the parties to the petition file joint application in that regard, the order of video conferencing cannot be passed. Relevant para- 58 of the said decision in the case of Santhini (supra) is reproduced as under:-

    "58. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we sum up our conclusion as follows:

    58.1. 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.

    58.2. 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.

    58.3. 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.

    58.4. In a transfer petition, video conferencing cannot be directed.

    58.5. Our directions shall apply prospectively. 58.6.) The decision in Krishna Veni Nagam (supra) is overruled to the aforesaid extent."

    3. In view of aforesaid conclusions made in the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Santhini (supra), the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner appear to be correct and apparently the law laid down in the said decision of Supreme Court in the case of Santhini (supra) has

    - 3 -

    escaped from consideration, therefore, there is error apparent on the face of record.

    4. Resultantly, by granting the review, the order dated 02.08.2023 is hereby recalled and the Registry is directed to list the MCC No.1614/23 for hearing afresh.

    5. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and disposed off.

    6. Interim pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.

    (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)

    JUDGE

    pb

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    SMT. SANDHYA SAINI v. KAPIL BADHOULIYA
    (Sep 15, 2023)