Procedural rules governing virtual evidence recording are not absolute and should not be applied so rigidly as to deny access to justice; courts possess the discretionary power to allow alternative virtual arrangements when geographical and logistical constraints make strict compliance with standard remote-point requirements objectively impossible.

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 of Indian Consulate/Embassy is essential in obtaining evidence through VC.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant and respondent reside in Ireland and the USA, respectively and due to substantial time-zone differences, it is practically impossible for them to appear before the Indian Consulate in alignment with Court timings. The condition imposed by the learned Court is therefore onerous, unreasonable, and incapable of compliance, effectively denying the parties an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

2.1 Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Family Court failed to recognize that hyper-technical procedural requirements cannot defeat substantive justice. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition that procedure is the handmaiden of justice and cannot be permitted to override substantive rights. The insistence on appearance through the consulate, despite admitted geographical and logistical constraints, amounts to elevating procedural technicalities over the cause of justice and effectively frustrates the remedy available under Section 13 of the Act of 1955.

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

4. The learned Family Court vide impugned order, inter alia, observed that since both parties are not residing within the jurisdiction of India and are residing outside the Indian jurisdiction, it is necessary, as per the provisions mentioned in the Video Conferencing Rules, that the parties appear at a Remote Point for recording their statements. Learned Family Cout observed that the presence of a Coordinator at the Remote Point is also mandatory as per Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court.

5. Before proceeding further, reference may be had to RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RULES for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 which have been framed specifically to cater to such circumstances. Relevant Rules are reproduced herein below:-

“ x-x-x-x-x-x

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.

x-x-x-x-x-x

5. Preparatory Arrangements

5.1 There shall be a Coordinator both at the Court Point and at the Remote Point from which any Required Person is to be examined or heard. However, Coordinator may be required at the Remote Point only when a witness or a person accused of an offence is to be examined.

x-x-x-x-x-x

5.3 The Coordinator at the Remote Point may be any of the following: