Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.22 seconds)
Finy Susan Francis vs Binu Philip Paul cites

Sudha Ramalingam vs Registrar General on 15 April, 2014

6. Evaluated on the basis of the above quoted decisions, circumstances prevailing in the case at hand would reveal that, the joint application was filed much earlier and the statutory waiting period had expired long back. Insisting upon the parties to have counselling together at this stage, cannot be termed as a procedure which is strictly mandatory. However, we notice that the interim application in which the impugned order was issued by the Family Court is one seeking permission to have the counselling done through 'video conferencing'. Learned OP (FC) No.401/2015 -9- counsel had drawn out attention to a decision of the High Court of Madras in Sudha Ramalingam V. Registrar General and others (2015) 1 MLJ 540. It is held therein that a discretion is vested with the Family Court itself to record evidence through 'video conferencing' especially because of the fact that Section 10 (3) of the Family Courts Act empowers the Family Court to lay down its own procedure to arrive at a settlement or to get the truth of the matter.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Mr. Mukesh Narayan Shinde vs Mrs. Palak Mukesh Shinde on 28 March, 2012

So also in a decision of the Bombay High Court in Mukesh Narayan Shinde V. Palak Mukesh Shinde Nee Palak D. Patel (2012 (3) ALL MR 521) a direction was issued to the Family Court to arrange a 'video conference' of the Marriage Counsellor with the respondent/wife in the court premises, with the help of a Computer/ Laptop or by using a Webcam. Learned counsel had also pointed out a decision rendered by this court in W.P (c) No.7400/2008 (judgment dated 04-12-2008) directing recording of evidence of a witness in a civil case through 'video conferencing' by appointing an Advocate OP (FC) No.401/2015 -10- Commission.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - M Bhatkar - Full Document

Saji T.Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2010

In the decision of this court in Saji T. Vargheese V. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 804) it was held that, OP (FC) No.401/2015 -5- personal appearance of the spouses in joint applications for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent need not unnecessarily be insisted at the stage of its second motion, on the expiry of the waiting period. It is held that the parties can make the second motion through their counsel by submitting chief affidavits in order to state their case on oath before the court. In the said case this court further observed that, a ritualistic insistence for personal presence of the parties for conciliation/counselling need not be made by the court in a joint application for divorce filed on the basis of mutual consent, if the court is otherwise satisfied about genuineness of the application.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1