Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a married couple, filed a joint petition under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by mutual consent. The marriage was solemnized on 15.04.2024, and the parties separated on 21.04.2024, shortly after which Petitioner No. 2 moved abroad. Petitioner No. 2 filed an application (Exh. 9) through his Power of Attorney holder seeking permission to participate in the mandatory conciliation process via video conferencing, as he was unable to be physically present. The learned Family Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, rejected the application, holding that conciliation cannot be conducted through video conferencing. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which require the court to make efforts for conciliation. The Court noted that the Family Courts Act does not prohibit video conferencing and that technological advancements should be embraced to ensure access to justice. The Court held that requiring physical presence would cause undue hardship and delay, defeating the purpose of mutual consent divorce. The High Court set aside the Family Court's order and directed it to permit video conferencing for the conciliation process, with the condition that the identity of Petitioner No. 2 be verified and that the proceedings be recorded.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Conciliation Proceedings - Video Conferencing - Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The Family Court rejected the application for video conferencing for conciliation, holding that physical presence is mandatory. The High Court set aside the order, holding that video conferencing is permissible to facilitate conciliation and avoid delay, especially when one party resides abroad. The Court directed the Family Court to permit video conferencing for the conciliation process. (Paras 1-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court can permit a party residing abroad to participate in the conciliation process via video conferencing in a divorce by mutual consent petition under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Family Court's order dated 14.11.2025, and directed the Family Court to permit Petitioner No. 2 to participate in the conciliation process via video conferencing, subject to verification of identity and recording of proceedings.
Law Points
- Video conferencing is permissible for conciliation proceedings under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act
- 1984 and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- especially when one party resides abroad
- to ensure effective access to justice and avoid unnecessary delays.
Case Details
R/Special Civil Application No. 2494 of 2026
Palakben Ravi Luni D/o Dhamasibhai Gobarbhai Rabari & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Family Court's order rejecting an application for video conferencing during conciliation in a divorce by mutual consent case.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to set aside the Family Court's order and to permit Petitioner No. 2 to participate in conciliation via video conferencing.
Filing Reason
The Family Court rejected the application for video conferencing, holding that conciliation cannot be conducted through video conferencing.
Previous Decisions
The Family Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, rejected the application (Exh. 9) dated 14.11.2025.
Issues
Whether the Family Court can permit a party residing abroad to participate in conciliation via video conferencing in a divorce by mutual consent petition.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that Petitioner No. 2 resides abroad and cannot be physically present for conciliation, causing undue hardship and delay. They submitted that video conferencing is permissible under law and would facilitate the conciliation process.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of conciliation under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not mandate physical presence. Video conferencing is a permissible mode to ensure effective access to justice and avoid unnecessary delays, especially when a party resides abroad.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, whereby the application filed under Exh. 9 dated 14.11.2025 filed by petitioner No. 2 and the Power of Attorney holder of petitioner No. 1, seeking permission to complete the conciliation process via video conferencing, was rejected.
The Court is required to make efforts toward conciliation and settlement between the parties. However, in the present case, Petitioner No. 2, 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.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Family Suit No. 3017 of 2025 under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by mutual consent. Petitioner No. 2 filed an application (Exh. 9) on 14.11.2025 seeking permission to participate in conciliation via video conferencing. The Family Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, rejected the application. The petitioners then filed the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Gujarat.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 13(b), Section 23(2)
- Family Courts Act, 1984: Section 9
