The main legal point established is the importance of adapting to technological advancements in the justice system, particularly the use of video conferencing for court proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral). - C.M.24802/2022 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CM (M) 486/2022

1. The present petition has been filed for seeking directions to the Family Court, Rohini, North West, Delhi to follow (i) the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and directions issued by Principle Judge, Family Court (Headquarter), Dwarka, Delhi regarding hearing of Mutual Divorce cases to be taken up via video conferencing and (ii) to direct Family Courts of Delhi to follow the existing guidelines or issue appropriate guidelines as this Court may deem fit, in relation to virtual system of hearings.

2. It is stated that the petitioner and the respondent got married on 29th November, 2017 at Delhi, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies and residing together within the jurisdiction of learned Judge, Family Court, Rohini, North West, Delhi. The parties currently work and reside in Portugal and thus, the parties signed and attested their case file before the notary in Portugal. The parties also filed an application to conduct the Court hearing through video conferencing.

3. On 22nd April, 2022, when the case was taken up, the joint counsel of the parties was physically present in the Court and both the parties were logged in virtually through Cisco webex. However, the learned Judge, Family Court, Rohini, North West, Delhi did not record the statement of the parties and adjourned the matter for 3rd August, 2022 ordering that both the parties are residing and working for gain at Portugal and are not within the jurisdiction of the Court today. It was further stated that no SPA is on record to represent the parties.

4. It is stated that the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rohini, North West, Delhi dated 22nd April, 2022 is in complete disregard to the directions issued by :

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para no. 22 of Civil Appeal No.11158/2017 titled as 'Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur'.

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MAT.APP (F.C.) No. 9/2021 titled as 'Mukesh More Versus Soni Kumari'.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court via notice No.34/RG/DHC/2022 dated 11th February, 2022

Hon'ble Family Court Headquarters, Dwarka Via Circular No.3530-3589Cir./Admn./FC/DWK/2020 dated 1st May, 2020.

5. It has further been stated that the order is also in violation of the directions issued by this Court from time to time regarding conducting Court proceedings through Video Conferencing. It is stated that there is no requirement for the parties to be either physically present themselves or any SPA to be physically present in Court, and the Court should allow the first motion between the parties after recording their statements via video conferencing.

6. Sh. Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the parties submits that an application under Section 151 CPC was also moved to conduct the Court proceedings virtually as both the parties were residing in Portugal and thus, were unable to travel to India for physical hearing. Learned counsel further submits that the reluctance of the Judge, Family Court, Rohini, North West, Delhi in recording the proceedings/statements of the parties virtually is not in accordance with the directions issued by the Superior Courts from time to time.

7. In recent past, the justice dispensation system has seen much advancement in the use of technology in conducting the Court proceedings. Courts have come forward to use the system of video conferencing for efficient and expeditious conduct of proceedings for the purpose of benefit of all stakeholders of the system.

8. In 'Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur' Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11158/2017 arising out of Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 20184 of 2017 while dealing with a petition relating to grant of mutual divorce inter alia held as under;

'22. Needless to say that in conducting such proceedings the Court can also use the medium of video conferencing and also permit g