New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stayed the Calcutta High Court's order requiring two persons to appear before it in person in a case arising out of marital discord, saying it would be "harmful" to understand. What is happening is why they were not given freedom. Will appear through virtual mode.
The top court said that the circumstances of the dispute before the High Court were prima facie not such that the personal presence of both the persons, one of whom is ill, was made to undertake the arduous journey from Mumbai despite his Medica status.
A vacation bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said that the High Court considered it appropriate to negotiate and reach a settlement between the parties, and efforts should be made to achieve this by allowing the petitioners to participate in the proceedings through virtual mode. Was. ,
“We are also unable to understand why despite the advancement of science and technology and introduction of virtual hearing facilities in the High Courts, the Court did not deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the two petitioners to appear before it.Through virtual mode,” the top court said in its order passed on May 20.
The bench was hearing a petition against the High Court's May 14 order requiring the personal presence of the two men.
The top court found that it had failed to understand the necessity of the High Court's direction to insist on the personal appearance of one of the petitioners despite it being stated to him that he was suffering from serious medical conditions.
"From the material placed on record we come to know that petitioner No. 2 has not only recently undergone organ transplant but is also suffering from other diseases requiring surgery, making it not advisable for him to go to Kolkata .Court proceedings materially,” it noted.The bench said that the other petitioner had physically appeared before the High Court on April 8 in compliance with its earlier order, yet, she too has been ordered to be produced before the court by the police without any apparent reason.
It said the High Court order is binding on the petitioners to take strict action.
"We hope that the court will exercise restraint unless any party repeatedly violates its order to undermine its dignity, reputation and majesty, thereby attracting contempt jurisdiction. Judiciously exercise of its discretion may prevent the proceedings from reaching this Court." Said.“For the above reasons, we have no hesitation in staying the operation of the order requiring personal presence of both the petitioners on May 22, 2024,” it said, giving them liberty to appear before the high court through virtual mode.
It said an order passed in the case by the high court on January 31 had taken note of the court's desire to interact with the parties to the proceedings and in view of this, the parties are required to appear before it on April 8. Was.
The top court said that on April 8, one of the petitioners was physically present in the High Court, while the other petitioner could not be present due to medical issues, which was brought to the attention of the High Court.
It said that it is recorded in the High Court's order dated April 8 that the court insists on the presence of petitioner no. 2 on the next date of hearing on May 14.
The top court said that the circumstances of the dispute before the High Court were prima facie not such that the personal presence of both the persons, one of whom is ill, was made to undertake the arduous journey from Mumbai despite his Medica status.
A vacation bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said that the High Court considered it appropriate to negotiate and reach a settlement between the parties, and efforts should be made to achieve this by allowing the petitioners to participate in the proceedings through virtual mode. Was. ,
“We are also unable to understand why despite the advancement of science and technology and introduction of virtual hearing facilities in the High Courts, the Court did not deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the two petitioners to appear before it.Through virtual mode,” the top court said in its order passed on May 20.
The bench was hearing a petition against the High Court's May 14 order requiring the personal presence of the two men.
The top court found that it had failed to understand the necessity of the High Court's direction to insist on the personal appearance of one of the petitioners despite it being stated to him that he was suffering from serious medical conditions.
"From the material placed on record we come to know that petitioner No. 2 has not only recently undergone organ transplant but is also suffering from other diseases requiring surgery, making it not advisable for him to go to Kolkata .Court proceedings materially,” it noted.The bench said that the other petitioner had physically appeared before the High Court on April 8 in compliance with its earlier order, yet, she too has been ordered to be produced before the court by the police without any apparent reason.
It said the High Court order is binding on the petitioners to take strict action.
"We hope that the court will exercise restraint unless any party repeatedly violates its order to undermine its dignity, reputation and majesty, thereby attracting contempt jurisdiction. Judiciously exercise of its discretion may prevent the proceedings from reaching this Court." Said.“For the above reasons, we have no hesitation in staying the operation of the order requiring personal presence of both the petitioners on May 22, 2024,” it said, giving them liberty to appear before the high court through virtual mode.
It said an order passed in the case by the high court on January 31 had taken note of the court's desire to interact with the parties to the proceedings and in view of this, the parties are required to appear before it on April 8. Was.
The top court said that on April 8, one of the petitioners was physically present in the High Court, while the other petitioner could not be present due to medical issues, which was brought to the attention of the High Court.
It said that it is recorded in the High Court's order dated April 8 that the court insists on the presence of petitioner no. 2 on the next date of hearing on May 14.
