Swapnil Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Sureshchandra vs Chitranshi

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31326
1 MP-6821-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6821 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020444782026
SWAPNIL THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SURESHCHANDRA
Versus
CHITRANSHI
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Narayan Joshi, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Divyansh Luniya, counsel for the respondent .
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition is directed against the order dated 24.09.2025
passed in RCS HM/1725/2026 by II Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Indore whereby the application filed by the petitioner/husband for
permitting him to appear through video conferencing as he is staying in USA
and application is filed under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, has been
dismissed.
It is admitted fact that marriage of petitioner and respondent was
solemnized on 24.06.2019. Out of wedlock, a daughter was born on
18.09.2021. Due to some dispute arose between the parties, they have been
living separately since March 2021. Thereafter several attempts were made
by way of mediation to resolve the dispute. An application was filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
KOUSHAL
Signing time: 11/5/2026
10:59:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31326
2 MP-6821-2026
petitioner/husband before the Family Court under section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act to permit him to appear through video conferencing and also
father of the petitioner/husband shall appear as power of attorney. In support
of the contention, petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the matter of Rucha Vs. Kush Dewoo (M.P.No.
7735/2023).
It is relevant to note that Family Court had dismissed the application
by relying on the observation made in the judgment of Santhani Vs. Vijaya
Venkatesh, 2018(1) SCC 1 where Hon. Apex Court has directed that in view
of provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, necessary mediation and conciliation
proceedings are required and for that purpose, physical presence of the
respective parties is must to get the better result and therefore Family Court
has rejected the application.
It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that in view of the
order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in M.P.No. 7735/2023 in para-9 of
the order it is observed that even in the case of Santini (Supra) the Supreme
Court has not prohibited recording of preliminary evidence on an application
under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 through video conferencing. This Court
also supports the case of the petitioner by permitting him to appear through
video conferencing considering the submissions and factual aspect of the
matter. Even otherwise considering the fact that petitioner is residing at USA
and it is difficult for him to attend the court proceedings on each date before
the Family Court. He can certainly appear through video conferencing more
particularly when necessary efforts were made for settlement and thereafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
KOUSHAL
Signing time: 11/5/2026
10:59:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31326
3 MP-6821-2026
the parties have filed this application. I find that learned Family Court has

erred in not considering this factual aspect and mechanically applied the
observation made in the matter of Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venkatesh(supra)
which would certainly cause prejudice and hardship to the parties more
particularly the husband who is staying in USA. Otherwise also it is not
necessary and also not practical to appear physically on each hearing as
observed in the judgment of co-ordinate Bench. The Family Court has not
properly appreciated facts of the present case and also committed gross error
in applying the judgment of Santhini's case in appropriate manner. The Court
has to consider all the relevant aspects of the matter more particularly factual
aspects as well as subsequent development which is available on record
which may not cause undue hardship to any of the parties by taking such
hypertechnical approach. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that it
is a case where supervisory jurisdiction under section 227 of the Constitution
of India can be exercised.
In view of aforesaid and keeping in mind the ratio of another judgment
in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746
wherein parties were residing separately for more than 5 years and had filed
the application under section 13(B) after attempts were made in the earlier
proceedings under section 13(1)(A) it was held that in such proceedings the
Court can also use the medium of video conferencing and also permit
genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as parents
or siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and
valid reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
KOUSHAL
Signing time: 11/5/2026
10:59:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31326
4 MP-6821-2026
the petitioner-husband is permitted to appear before the Family Court

through video conferencing and Family Court to expedite the proceedings.
Since it is jointly requested by the counsel for the parties that matter is
fixed for personal appearance of husband in the month of January,2027, no
fruitful purpose would be served to delay the proceedings, therefore parties
shall remain present before the Family Court on 17.01.2027. Husband is
permitted to appear through video conferencing.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
MK

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
KOUSHAL
Signing time: 11/5/2026
10:59:24 AM