IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :4271 of 2009 Between: A.T.G. Srinivas Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Puskarini .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4271 OF 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by order, dated 19.8.2009 in I.A.No.335 of 2009 in O.P.No.500 of 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, the present revision petition has been filed. Originally, the petitioner-husband filed the main O.P.No.500 of 2008 against the respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage. The Court directed the petitioner to appear for reconciliation. At this stage, the petitioner-husband filed the application in I.A.No.335 of 2009 seeking permission to participate in reconciliation proceedings through Video Conference. The Court below having observed that the presence of the parties cannot be dispensed with for reconciliation proceedings since it would defeat the object of very constitution of special courts for family disputes and that there may be chance of reconciliation between wife and husband, if they personally meet and exchange their views, the court cannot delegate this reconciliation to other, dismissed the application. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that Section 9 of the Act envisages the method to be adopted for reconciliation. It is an obligation on the family Courts to endeavour to effect reconciliation between the parties to the family disputes. For conducting this nature of proceedings, the personal appearance of the parties is necessary, because it is the obligation of the Courts to patch up the differences in them. There may be chance of reunion of the parties, if they see each other, disclose all their differences and exchange their views. In this view of the matter, I feel that the interference of video would defeat the very object of the method of reconciliation and therefore, the personal appearance of the petitioner-husband cannot be dispensed with. In these circumstances, I feel that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 11th September, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4271 OF 2009 11.09.2009