Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Palakben Ravi Luni (Petitioner No. 1) and her husband (Petitioner No. 2), filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court No. 5, Ahmedabad. Their marriage was solemnized on 15.04.2024, but they separated shortly thereafter on 21.04.2024, as Petitioner No. 2 moved abroad. Since Petitioner No. 2 was residing abroad, he filed the petition through a Power of Attorney holder and also filed an application (Exh. 9) on 14.11.2025 seeking permission to complete the conciliation process via video conferencing. The Family Court rejected this application, holding that conciliation cannot be conducted through video conferencing. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court. 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 mandate the court to make efforts for conciliation. The court noted that the object of conciliation is to explore the possibility of settlement, and technology should be used to facilitate this process, especially when one party is abroad. The court held that the Family Court has inherent power to regulate its proceedings and can permit video conferencing. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Family Court to permit Petitioner No. 2 to appear via video conferencing for conciliation and to complete the process within four weeks. The court also clarified that the Family Court may pass appropriate orders regarding the presence of the Power of Attorney holder if necessary.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Divorce by Mutual Consent - Video Conferencing for Conciliation - Section 13(b) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9 Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 23(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The petitioners filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Petitioner No. 2, residing abroad, sought permission to appear via video conferencing for the mandatory conciliation process. The Family Court rejected the application, holding that conciliation cannot be conducted through video conferencing. The High Court set aside the order, holding that video conferencing is permissible and necessary to facilitate settlement, especially when one party is abroad. The court directed the Family Court to permit video conferencing and complete conciliation within four weeks. (Paras 1-18) B) Family Law - Conciliation - Power of Attorney - Section 9 Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 23(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The Family Court rejected the application for video conferencing, but the High Court held that the object of conciliation is to explore settlement, and technology should be used to achieve that object. The court emphasized that the Family Court has inherent power to regulate its proceedings and can permit video conferencing. (Paras 10-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court can permit a party residing abroad to participate in conciliation proceedings via video conferencing in a divorce by mutual consent case under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of the Family Court, and directed the Family Court to permit Petitioner No. 2 to appear via video conferencing for the conciliation process. The Family Court was directed to complete the conciliation process within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The court also clarified that the Family Court may pass appropriate orders regarding the presence of the Power of Attorney holder if necessary.
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
- the court must adopt a pragmatic approach to facilitate settlement rather than insist on physical presence.
