Technology Must Facilitate Access To Justice: Gujarat High Court Allows NRI Husband To Join Conciliation Via VC
The Gujarat High Court quashed a family court order which had while considering a mutual consent divorce case, rejected a US-based husband's request to participate in conciliation process through video conferencing, holding that the request was blindly rejected without considering the facts of the case. In doing so the court said that the use of video conferencing ensures that...
The Gujarat High Court quashed a family court order which had while considering a mutual consent divorce case, rejected a US-based husband's request to participate in conciliation process through video conferencing, holding that the request was blindly rejected without considering the facts of the case.
In doing so the court said that the use of video conferencing ensures that judicial proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delay, thereby facilitating the expeditious disposal of matters in appropriate circumstances. It said that compelling the husband–who is living in the USA–to travel from abroad solely to participate in the conciliation proceedings would be both "unfair and unreasonable".
Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, Justice MK Thakker in her order said:
"it emerges that in cases where transfer petitions are filed and the attempt at settlement fails, witnesses may be examined through video conferencing provided both parties give their consent. It has further been held that where the parties mutually consent, and where the Court finds that such a course is necessary having regard to the specific factual matrix and convenience of the parties, the Family Court may permit proceedings through video conferencing. It has been further held that the discretion in this regard lies with the learned Family Court, which is required to take an appropriate decision after considering the factual background and circumstances involved in the case. The Apex Court has also observed that when a joint application is filed before the learned Family Court seeking permission for video conferencing, the Family Court shall decide the same after considering the issues involved in the matter...
As observed in Santhini (supra) appropriate deployment of technology serves the cause of access to justice and proceedings under the Family Courts Act are not excluded from this principle. Video conferencing provides a cost effective and efficient alternative and technology based solutions which must be adopted to facilitate access to justice. In the present case the parties separated within a few days of marriage, nearly one and a half years have passed, the marriage was not consummated, all articles have been exchanged, petitioner No. 1 has waived her claim to alimony and all efforts of reconciliation have failed. Video conferencing is a technological facility which enables persons situated at different locations to conduct face-to-face meetings. The said technology is extensively used across the world"
The court noted that the family court had blindly relied on Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018) without looking into the fact involved in the case. The high court thereafter referred to Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Amritlal Lal Manchanda (2004) where it was held that "each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another".
The high court thus said:
"Considering the aforesaid background, in the opinion of this Court, the observations made by the Apex Court are required to be read and understood in the context in which they were rendered. However, the learned Trial Court has mechanically and blindly relied upon the said decision and, on that basis, rejected the application of the applicant. Such an approach, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and therefore deserves to be interfered with".
The court was hearing a plea against a family court order whereby the petitioner no. 2's (husband) application seeking permission to complete the conciliation process via video conferencing, was rejected.
The petitioners filed a Family Suit under Section 13(B) (divorce by mutual consent) Hindu Marriage Act, contending that the marriage between wife and the husband was solemnized in 2024 at Ahmedabad but the parties have been living separately since 21.04.2024, as the husband has been residing abroad since shortly after the marriage.
Upon filing a petition for a consent decree, under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court is required to make efforts toward conciliation and settlement between the parties.
However, in the present case, the husband being abroad, filed proceedings through a Power of Attorney holder, contending that he is unable to be physically present for the conciliation process, thereby seeking permission to appear via video conferencing. The husband's application was rejected by the Family Court, holding that conciliation could not be conducted through video conferencing.
The petitioners' counsel there has been no cohabitation between the couple as husband and wife since 21.04.2024, and the marriage has not been consummated. After the solemnization of the marriage, the petitioners remained in contact only through video calls and WhatsApp communications. Owing to serious differences of opinion, the relationship between Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 became strained and incompatible.
It was further submitted that the differences between the parties were of such a grave nature that there remained no possibility of reconciliation. Despite several attempts made by relatives and well-wishers to resolve the disputes, all such efforts proved futile. Consequently, the parties have mutually decided to dissolve their marriage by filing a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
It is submitted that both parties are well-educated individuals and fully understand the implications and consequences of their decision. The parties have exchanged all articles, gifts, and dowry items received from each other.
It is further submitted that Petitioner No. 1 (wife) voluntarily waives all claims to permanent alimony or maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, or any other applicable law, as against Petitioner No. 2 (husband).
The family court had held that under the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is incumbent upon the Court to make sincere efforts toward conciliation and settlement between the parties. The family court rejected the petition on the ground that participation through video conferencing in conciliation proceedings would not amount to effective participation.
The high court allowed the petition and directed the family court to proceed with the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, permitting petitioner No. 2 to participate in the conciliation proceedings via video conferencing.
Case title: Palakben Ravi Luni & Anr. v/s None
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2494 of 2026
Counsel for petitioners: Advocate S Rutvij