'Technology Can't Be a Hurdle': Gujarat HC Clears Path for NRI Husband's Video Appearance in Mutual Divorce

In a ruling that underscores the need for courts to embrace technology without red tape, the Gujarat High Court has struck down a Family Court's barrage of 15 hyper-technical conditions imposed on a husband living in Australia seeking to affirm his consent for mutual divorce. Justice J.C. Doshi permitted a straightforward video conference from the husband's portable device, criticizing the lower court's approach as frustrating rather than facilitating justice.

From Wedding Bells to Virtual Divorce: The Couple's Quick Split

The petitioners, married on February 23, 2024, in Ahmedabad under Hindu rites and registered locally, parted ways just 17 days later on March 12, 2024, citing irreconcilable differences. Unable to reconcile, they filed a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by mutual consent, registered as Family Suit No. 1472 of 2025 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad.

Having filed affidavits for the first motion, the couple moved for the mandatory second motion. With the husband (Petitioner No. 2) residing in Australia, they sought his examination via video conferencing (VC)—first informally (Exhibit-14), then formally per Gujarat High Court Rules (Exhibit-15). The Family Court allowed VC but saddled it with 15 stringent directions: appointing a Court Commissioner (with Rs. 10,000 deposit), mandating embassy coordinators, secured encryption, time slots from consulates, and identity verifications. It also rejected (Exhibit-16) a request to forward the order to the Indian Consulate in Melbourne, directing the parties to handle it themselves.

Aggrieved, the couple invoked Article 227 before the High Court.

Petitioners' Plea: Simplify VC, Don't Strangle It

No opponents in this uncontested mutual divorce, the petitioners argued the Family Court's orders turned a simple joint request into an insurmountable obstacle. They highlighted compliance with High Court VC Rules (2021), including Schedule II, and precedents allowing VC post-failed reconciliation in consensual matters. The 15 conditions—disclosing coordinators, paying commissioners, consulate slots—were portrayed as "inroads" negating VC's purpose, especially for an NRI spouse affirming free consent.

High Court's Tech-Savvy Scrutiny: Precedents Pave the Way

Justice Doshi dissected the Family Court's "hyper-technical" and "nit-picking" stance, first referencing the Supreme Court's landmark Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1. This overruled Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam (2017) 4 SCC 150, clarifying VC in family proceedings requires joint consent post-settlement failure, resting discretion with Family Courts but barring mandates in transfer petitions.

A recent Gujarat HC coordinate bench in Palakben Ravi Luni v. None (2026:GUJHC:17292) reinforced this for mutual consent cases. The High Court faulted the Family Court for ignoring Gujarat's VC Rules' object—facilitating access, not complexity—and misapplying them to a non-witness, self-consent scenario.

Under Family Courts Act sections 14-16, the judge must personally gauge consent, not delegate to commissioners. "Technology should serve as handmaiden to justice, and not a hurdle," the court observed, urging a "litigant-friendly approach."

Key Observations from the Bench

  • On Procedural Overkill : "The learned Family Court... issued in all 15 directions... which virtually negate the request of video conferencing."
  • Judicial Role in Consent : "The subjective satisfaction was required to be recorded by the learned Family Judge and not by any Court Commissioner."
  • Tech's True Purpose : "Technology should serve as handmaiden to justice, and not a hurdle in the path. It must remain simple, reliable and accessible to litigant."
  • Court's Duty : "The learned Family Court, by passing the orders below Exhibits-15 and 16... instead created hurdles in the path."

Green Light for Simple VC: Implications for NRI Couples

The petition succeeded: impugned orders quashed. The husband can now join VC from his portable device during court hours, with the Family Court fixing IST timings, sharing High Court-approved links via email, and verifying identity via government ID if needed. No commissioners, no deposits—just visibility and audibility.

This ruling, circulated to all Gujarat Family Courts, eases mutual divorces for overseas spouses, promoting efficiency amid post-pandemic digital norms. As media reports echoed, it ensures "technology can't be a hurdle," potentially influencing procedural reforms nationwide.