IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
Aishwarya Sridhar Rep. by her mother as her power of attorney holder S. Bhuvaneswari - Appellant
Versus
Harihara Venkataraman Balasubramanian Rep. by his father as his Power of Attorney Holder N. Balasubramanian - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 2310 of 2023
Decided On : 17-10-2023
Video-Conferencing - Mutual Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13B - Madras High Court Video-Conferencing in Courts Rules 2020 - Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh [(2018) 1 SCC 1] - Mr.Aditya Jagannath v. Nil [M.F.A.No.4453/2020 (FC) dated 10.11.2020] - W.P.No.7338/2020 dated 03.06.2020 - Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana [Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 351/ 2023 dated 06.10.2023] - The judgment discussed the application of video-conferencing in mutual divorce cases under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the principles laid down in relevant court decisions and rules, and directed the Family Court to receive the divorce petition filed through power of attorneys and ascertain the consent of the parties virtually.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and respondent, residing in the USA, sought mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court refused to receive the application through power of attorneys, citing the necessity of physical presence. The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition seeking direction for virtual receipt of the divorce petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the physical appearance of the parties is not necessary for receiving the application filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act through the power agents of the parties for mutual divorce. It directed the Family Court to receive the divorce petition filed by both parties through their respective power of attorneys and dispose of the same virtually, in accordance with law.
Issues: The issue to be decided was whether the physical appearance of the parties is necessary for receiving the application filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act through the power agents of the parties for mutual divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh [(2018) 1 SCC 1], W.P.No.7338/2020 dated 03.06.2020, and Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana [Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 351/ 2023 dated 06.10.2023], emphasizing the importance of video-conferencing in judicial proceedings and the use of technology to facilitate efficient and timely justice.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the Family Court was directed to receive the divorce petition filed by both petitioner and respondent through their respective power of attorneys and dispose of the same virtually, in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Learned Presiding Officer, Principal Family Court, Chennai, to receive the petitioner's and respondent's joined petition for dissolution of their marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 that was solemnized on 10.07.2016 under mutual consent and for implementing the terms of compromise on 13.12.2022 and ascertain the consent of the parties hereto virtually, with the parties being identified by respective counsel and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dispensing with the 6 months waiver period.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to the Learned Presiding Officer, Principal Family Court, Chennai, to receive the petitioner's and respondent's joined petition for dissolution of their marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 that was solemnized on 10.07.2016 under mutual consent and for implementing the terms of compromise on 13.12.2022 and ascertain the consent of the parties hereto virtually, with the parties being identified by respective counsel and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dispensing with the 6 months waiver period.
2. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 10.07.2016 at Virugambakam, Chennai - 600 091. Due to misunderstanding between them, they got separated in the year 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No. 5026 of 2022 for restitution of conjugal rights, which petition was numbered after the direction of this Court in C.R.P.No.2553 of 2021. The respondent filed a petition for divorce after the HMOP filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights, but it was numbered earlier and therefore, it was assigned the number H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2019. The petitioner and respondent thereafter had arrived at a compromise on 13.12.2022. In accordance with the terms of the compromise, they withdrew the respective petitions before the Family Court namely H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2019 and H.M.O.P.No.5026 of 2022 through their above said power of attorneys respectively. Thereafter, on 16.06.2023, the power of attorney of the respondent namely his father and the power of attorney of the petitioner namely her mother appeared before the Family Court and filed an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the Learned Presiding Officer, Family Court has stated that at least one of the parties should be present while the other can appear on virtual mode. Since the petitioner is residing in USA, she is constrained to move this revision petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, both the petitioner and respondent are residing in USA. If they travelled to India to present the petition for divorce by mutual consent, they may lose their job. He further submitted that, after 5 years of separation, due to intervention of elders, the parties have resolved the issue and entered into a memorandum of compromise and therefore, it is necessary that the consent petition be received through the respective power of attorneys of the parties and consent of the parties be recorded on the virtual mode.
4. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh [(2018) 1 SCC 1] and also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Mr.Aditya Jagannath v. Nil [M.F.A.No.4453/2020 (FC) dated 10.11.2020.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the materials on record.
6. The petitioner and respondent decided to dissolve the marriage that
The court ruled that technical objections should not obstruct mutual consent divorce proceedings, allowing representation via power of attorney and video conferencing, emphasizing the need for judici....
The court established that technical objections should not hinder the process of mutual consent divorce, allowing virtual appearances and representation through power of attorneys.
The court affirmed that parties in divorce proceedings may appear via video conferencing, recognizing technological advancements that facilitate justice.
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.
Videoconferencing in matrimonial disputes is not permissible at the reconciliation stage; it can only occur post-failure of reconciliation with mutual consent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.