The Family Court must accommodate requests for video conferencing when parties are unable to appear physically and consider waiving the cooling-off period thereafter.

ORDER :

Mr. Arun Monga, J. - Grievance herein is qua inaction of learned Family Court No.3, Bikaner in not acting upon the joint application of the parties to appear through video conferencing or through power of attorney and proceed further to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent in accordance with law.

2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.

2.1 Marriage of the parties herein was solemnized in the year 2017. Parties cohabited as husband and wife. However, due to temperamental differences, they started living separately since 01.12.2018.

2.2 Having failed to reconciliate, despite efforts, parties filed a joint petition for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') (Annexure-1) before learned Family Court No. 3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Family Court') in the year, 2022.

2.3 Both parties moved an application (Annexure-3), through email for waiver of statutory period of six months as enshrined under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 and further, it was prayed that in the light of order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case titled "Prateek Tater v. Pragya Chordia" Civil Writ Petition No.5223/2022 decided on 16.05.2022, the parties may be permitted to appear before the family court through their respective power of attorney holders or through video conferencing.

2.4 It is specifically stated in the aforesaid application that, since both parties have left India and are currently working in Germany and United States of America respectively, they are unable to appear before the family court physically. Along with said application, proofs of their overseas residence was also submitted.

2.5. However, the learned Family Court below has kept the matter/joint application pending since February 2023 by adjourning the hearings on one count or the other. While on the other hand, both the parties are unable to move on in their respective lives in the absence of dissolution of their marriage. Hence, the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since both the parties have filed a joint application requesting the learned court below to grant them a decree of divorce, therefore, the learned court below ought to have allowed the parties to appear through VC or their respective power of attorney holders in case they are not able to appear physically before the court concerned.

4. Learned counsel relies on judgment rendered by Apex Court in case titled "Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur" (2017) 8 SCC 746 to contend that given the peculiar circumstances of the case, both petitioners ought to have been exempted from the cooling off period of six months. Furthermore, once there is genuine representation of the parties through their close relatives, such as parents or siblings, and where the parties are unable to appear in person for valid and justifiable reasons, the court should be lenient in accepting the request for VC. In the case at hand, learned court below should have dealt with the said request leniently. However, the order sheet of the family Court would reveal that the learned court below has till date not decided the said joint application to permit the parties to appear through video conferencing.

5. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, the parties have caused appearance in past as the joint petition under section 13B was filed by them in person. Their duly sworn affidavits were also filed in person deposing breakdown of marriage. In such circumstances, keeping the matter pending for good one year without deciding the application for appearing through video conferencing/power of attorneys, will only protract the case and will lead to further mental agony for both the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file.

7. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere merely because learned Family Court has adjour