Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The applicant and the second respondent contracted marriage as per hindu rites and custom on 20 November 2010. In August 2013 a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act, 1955) was instituted before the Family Court, at Muzaffarnagar, seeking divorce on mutual consent. The petition being Case No. 1149 of 2014 (Smt. Shilpa Chaudhary v. Vikram Singh). Though dates were fixed by the Court, however, the matter could not be taken for hearing, finally the applicant left the country for Boston, USA, for pursuing her carrier. The applicant executed power of attorney in favour of her mother for parivi and to enter into a compromise for dissolution of the marriage before the Family Court. On 28 November 2015 applicant filed an application (11Ka) through her counsel and prayed for decision/disposal of the case, but by the impugned order dated 17 December 2015 the application was rejected.

2. The learned Court noted in the impugned order that merely on the basis of an affidavit, the marriage cannot be dissolved in proceedings under Section 13-B of Act, 1955. The presence of the parties is necessarily mandatory, further, the electronic facility available in the Court cannot be used, as there being no device for interacting with a party who is residing outside the country. The applicant is assailing the order in supervisory proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there being no possibility of reconciliation between the parties, therefore, the learned Court, at the best, could have arrived at a conclusion upon having the statement recorded through videoconferencing or of the power of attorney holder.

4. The first question for determination is whether under Order 18 Rule 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure recording of statement of witness through videoconferencing is permissible.

5. From the long title of the Family Court Act, 1984, one would gather that every endeavor is required to be made by the family Court to assist the parties in arriving at a speedy settlement of disputes relating to the marriage, and/or family affairs.

6. The parties are not only required to be assisted, but also required to be persuaded by the judge in arriving at a settlement while keeping in view the matters of protecting and preserving the institution of marriage between the parties. However, when parties to a marriage come before the family Court and ask for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of Act, 1955, the Court is required to adjourn the motion moved by both the parties by a period not earlier than six months, further, sub-section (2) requires the Court shall on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and making such enquiry as it thinks fit with regard to the averments in the petition pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage dissolved with effect from the date of such decree. Therefore, there may have been a genuine apprehension in the mind of Family Court, as to whether there is any possibility of reconciliation between the parties or change of mind with regard to consent expressed earlier for dissolution of the marriage.

7. The word “after hearing the parties” used in sub-section (2) of Section 13B, however, does not necessarily mean that both parties have to be examined. The word “hearing” is often used in a broad sense which need not always mean personal hearing when there are no suspicious circumstances or any particular reason to think that the averments in the affidavit may not be true, there is absolutely no reason why the Court should not act on the affidavit filed by one of the parties. The Family Courts are entitled to ascertain the views of the parties, but however, if one of the parties, appears before the family Court and expresses no objection to an affidavit of the other party to be taken on record and is not desirous of cross-examining the deponent of the affi