[2026:RJ-JD:1874-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2529/2024 Lokesh Chawla S/o Sh. Brijesh Chawla, Aged About 34 Years, Through His Special Power Of Attorney Holder -Father Sh. Brijesh Chawla S/o Late Sh. Sant Lal Chawla, Age 65 Years, R/o

4/98, 2Nd Floor, Subhash Nagar, North-South Delhi (India)

----Appellant Versus Aditi Parihar D/o Sh. Sunil Parihar, R/o M.no-707, Paota C Road, Behind Radio Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Acharaj Singh Saluja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Singh for Mr. Mahaveer Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

13/01/2026

1. The appellant -husband has approached this Court aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Case No. 20/2023 (96/2019), whereby the learned Family Court rejected the appellant’s application, vide which he sought permission to appear either via video conferencing or through his special power of attorney holder (father), in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 initiated by the respondent -Wife seeking a decree to dissolve the marriage between the parties. The learned Family Court denied the request on the grounds that the personal presence of the party is mandatory, particularly in light of a pending application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. After notice, the husband also caused his appearance through Special Power of Attorney likewise the recourse adopted by his respondent-wife.

3. It transpires that both the parties are currently residing in Scotland and therefore, are unable to personally appear or prosecute their respective causes before the Family Court, Jodhpur.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard learned counsels representing parties and perused the file.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the present is a case, where first of all, the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act itself was not maintainable. Respondent/wife has not even presented the plaint herself. Order-sheet in the Family Court was initially signed by her father/power of attorney holder. In the subsequent order-sheets, the same are signed either through her next friend or her non-appearance is recorded. In any case, there was no occasion for conciliation after the summon was served upon the appellant.

5.2 He states that going by the events taking place, it is apparent that appellant is being treated differently. Inasmuch as, he is neither been permitted to appear through video conferencing nor through his Special Power of Attorney i.e. his Father Sh. Brijesh Chawla. Whereas, respondent has been permitted to either appear through the next friend or her special power of attorney.

6. Having heard, we are of the opinion that the learned Family Court, Jodhpur rather adopted a contradictory yardstick for both the parties. On one hand, the respondent-Wife (Scotland resident) has been permitted to cause appearance through Special Power of Attorney, on the other hand, vide impugned order dated 22.07.2024, direction has been issued to the appellant to personally present in the Court and even his request to appear through video conferencing has also been declined, notwithstanding that he too is a resident of Scotland.

7. It is rather intriguing as to why the learned Family Court would not follow the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 which have been framed specifically to cater to such circumstances. Relevant Rule 3 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“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.

(ii) All proceedings conducted by a Court via video conferencing shall be judicial proceedings and all the courtesies and protocols applicable to a physical Court shall apply to these virtual proceedings. The