Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
ARUN MONGA, SUNIL BENIWAL
Divya Acharya, W/o. Shri Pulkit Acharya – Appellant
Versus
Pulkit Acharya, S/o. Lakshmikant Acharya – Respondent
| 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
Adherence to procedural rules for video conferencing in legal proceedings is essential; exemptions must have sufficient justification as mandated by the established rules.
The requirement for a Co-ordinator at the remote point during video conferencing is a normative rule under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules, and any exceptions must be justified by the court.
Exceptional circumstances, such as permanent residency in a foreign country and visa restrictions, may warrant the use of advanced technology, such as video conferencing, for court proceedings.
The court allowed the relaxation of video conferencing rules enabling a complainant abroad to record evidence, emphasizing the role of discretion to avoid undue hardship in legal proceedings.
The statement of an overseas witness can be recorded through video conferencing, as per the guidelines laid down by the court for the conduct of court proceedings between courts and remote sites.
The main legal point established is the applicability of Video Conferencing Rules to civil proceedings and the requirement for a Coordinator at the remote point for examining a witness through video ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
