Family Courts have the discretionary power to permit parties to participate in conciliation proceedings via video conferencing, particularly when they reside abroad, provided the court determines it serves the cause of justice and the parties have given mutual consent.

JUDGMENT

The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, whereby the application filed under Exh. 9 dated 14.11.2025 filed by petitioner No. 2 and the Power of Attorney holder of petitioner No. 1, seeking permission to complete the conciliation process via video conferencing, was rejected.

The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows :-

Family Suit No. 3017 of 2025 was filed by the petitioners under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, contending that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 was solemnized on 15.04.2024 at Ahmedabad and that the parties have been living separately since 21.04.2024, as Petitioner No. 2 has been residing abroad since shortly after the marriage. Upon filing a petition for a consent decree, under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court is required to make efforts toward conciliation and settlement between the parties. However, in the present case, Petitioner No. 2, being abroad, filed proceedings through a Power of Attorney holder, contending that he is unable to be physically present for the conciliation process, thereby seeking permission to appear via video conferencing. The application filed under Exh. 9 by Petitioner No. 2 through the Power of Attorney was rejected by the learned Court, holding that conciliation could not be conducted through video conferencing. The said order is the subject matter of the present petition.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Rutvij Oza for the petitioners.

It is respectfully submitted by the learned advocate, Mr. Oza, there has been no cohabitation between the petitioners as husband and wife since 21.04.2024, and the marriage has not been consummated. After the solemnization of the marriage, the petitioners remained in contact only through video calls and WhatsApp communications. Owing to serious differences of opinion, the relationship between Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 became strained and incompatible. The parties have not interacted as husband and wife for a considerable period of time. It is further submitted that the differences between the parties were of such a grave nature that there remained no possibility of reconciliation. Despite several attempts made by relatives and well-wishers to resolve the disputes, all such efforts proved futile. Consequently, the parties have mutually decided to dissolve their marriage by filing a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is submitted that both parties are well-educated individuals and fully understand the implications and consequences of their decision. The parties have exchanged all articles, gifts, and dowry items received from each other. Petitioner No. 1 has handed over all gold ornaments and other belongings to Petitioner No. 2, and Petitioner No. 2 has likewise returned all gifts and articles. It is further submitted that Petitioner No. 1 voluntarily waives all claims to permanent alimony or maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, or any other applicable law, as against Petitioner No. 2. In view of the irreconcilable differences in nature and temperament, the parties jointly filed a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court on 09.09.2025. As Petitioner No. 2 is presently residing in the United States of America and is unable to remain physically present before the Court, the petition has been filed through his duly constituted Power of Attorney holder, along with an undertaking that Petitioner No. 2 shall remain present through video conferencing. It is submitted that, considering the difficulty faced by Petitioner No. 2 in traveling to India, the learned Court ought to have permitted his appearance through v