Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 385
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, SUNIL BENIWAL, JJ.
Smt. Divya Acharya, W/o. Shri Pulkit Acharya – Appellant
Versus
Pulkit Acharya, S/o. Lakshmikant Acharya – Respondent
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1294 of 2026
Decided On : 27-03-2026
For the Appellant : Mr. Nitin Gokhlani
For the Respondent: Mr. Nishant Bora
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Family/Matrimonial Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Appellate Intervention - Review of Procedural Orders - When a trial court follows a hyper-technical approach that effectively denies the parties the opportunity to pursue their legal remedies, such orders are liable to be set aside to ensure the cause of justice prevails. (Paras 2.1, 9)
Facts of the case:
The parties filed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. They moved an application seeking permission to record their statements through virtual conferencing from their respective residences abroad. The subordinate court rejected this request, insisting that, under the governing rules for virtual proceedings, the presence of a designated official coordinator at a diplomatic mission was a mandatory condition for recording evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the governing rules for virtual proceedings contemplate situations where a coordinator may become unavailable, thus allowing for judicial discretion. Given the significant logistical hurdles of time differences and the inability to compel officials at diplomatic locations to facilitate hearings at odd hours, it is unreasonable to insist on physical presence at these locations, as it would effectively prevent the parties from accessing the court for relief.
Issues: Whether the mandatory requirement for a physical coordinator at a specified remote point for recording evidence is an absolute bar to virtual proceedings, and whether this condition can be relaxed when geographical constraints render it impossible to comply with the standard procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural rules are intended to facilitate the administration of justice and cannot be permitted to override substantive rights. Where strict adherence to procedural requirements regarding the location of evidence recording creates an insurmountable obstacle for litigants, the court is empowered to exercise its discretion to ensure that remote, virtual access is provided, provided that there are sufficient safeguards to verify identity and maintain the integrity of the evidence.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance vs access to substantive justice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. judicial discretion in applying remote conferencing rules when logistical constraints exist. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. authorization of remote appearance with imposition of identity verification safeguards. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
ARUN MONGA, J.
1. The appellant has approached this Court aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Case No. 1326/2025 (1315/2026), whereby the learned Family Court rejected the joint application preferred by appellant and respondent seeking permission to tender evidence via video conferencing (hereinafter, ‘VC’) from their respective place of residence/location, in the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, ‘Act of 1955’), initiated by the parties seeking a decree to dissolve the marriage between the parties by mutual consent. The learned Family Court denied the request on the grounds that as per Rule 5.1 of RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RULES for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 (hereinafter, ‘Rules of 2020’), the role of Remote Point Coordinator of Indian Consulate/Embassy is essential in obtaining evidence through VC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant and respondent reside in Ireland and the USA, respectively and due to substantial time-zone differences, it is practically impossible for them to appear before the Indian Consulate in alignment with Court timings. The condition imposed by the learned Court is therefore onerous, unreasonable, and incapable of compliance, effectively denying the parties an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
2.1 Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Family Court failed to recognize that hyper-technical procedural requirements cannot defeat substantive justice. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition that procedure is the handmaiden of justice and cannot be permitted to override substantive rights. The insistence on appearance through the consulate, despite admitted geographical and logistical constraints, amounts to elevating procedural technicalities over the cause of justice and effectively frustrates the remedy available under Section 13 of the Act of 1955.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard learned counsels representing parties and perused the file.
4. The learned Family Court vide impugned order, inter alia, observed that since both parties are not residing within the jurisdiction of India and are residing outside the Indian jurisdiction, it is necessary, as per the provisions mentioned in the Video Conferencing Rules, that the parties appear at a Remote Point for recording their statements. Learned Family Cout observed that the presence of a Coordinator at the Remote Point is also mandatory as per Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court.
5. Before proceeding further, reference may be had to RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RULES for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 which have been framed specifically to cater to such circumstances. Relevant Rules are reproduced herein below:-
“ x-x-x-x-x-x
3. General Principles Governing Video Conferencing:-
(i) Video conferencing facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings and proceedings conducted by the Court.
x-x-x-x-x-x
5. Preparatory Arrangements
5.1 There shall be a Coordinator both at the Court Point and at the Remote Point from which any Required Person is to be examined or heard. However, Coordinator may be required at the Remote Point only when a witness or a person accused of an offence is to be examined.
x-x-x-x-x-x
5.3 The Coordinator at the Remote Point may be any of the following:
| Sub Rule | Where the Advocate or Required Person is at the following Remote Point: | The Remote Point Coordinator shall be: |
| 5.3.1 | Overseas | An official of an Indian Consulate/ the relevant Indian Embassy / the relevant High Commission of I |
