Canada-Based Husband In Mutual-Consent Divorce Case May Depose By Video From His Own Device: Gujarat HC

The petitioners filed a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

Petitioner No. 1, the husband, resided in Canada and sought permission to give evidence by video conference.

The Family Court allowed his application but imposed conditions including appearance from a designated remote point, coordination through an embassy-appointed coordinator, appointment and payment of a court commissioner, and compliance with the Audio-Video Conferencing Rules, 2025.

The petitioners challenged those conditions as impracticable and sought permission for the husband to depose by video conference on workable terms.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India provide the jurisdiction invoked to challenge the Family Court’s order.

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governed the parties’ petition for dissolution by mutual consent.

The Court relied on the Coordinate Bench’s decision in Special Civil Application No. 5760 of 2026, which, referring to Santhina V. Vijaya Venketesh [(2018) 1 SCC 1] and Palakben Ravi Luni D/O Dhamasibhai Gobarbhai Rabari & Anr. v. None [2026:GUJHC:17292], stressed that technology should facilitate access to justice rather than create procedural obstacles.

The Audio-Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, were referenced in the Family Court’s conditions; the High Court’s operative directions instead required use of the platform authorized by the High Court and used by the Family Court.

The husband’s residence abroad made in-person evidence difficult, and the Family Court had already accepted video conferencing as an appropriate means of recording his evidence.

However, the conditions imposed—including arrangements through a remote point and coordinator, a court commissioner, and associated payments—were considered onerous and inconsistent with the litigant-friendly approach endorsed in the Coordinate Bench decision.

The Court therefore replaced those requirements with a more accessible procedure while retaining safeguards concerning the authorized platform, identity verification where necessary, and the husband’s visibility, audibility, and identification during the session.

The Family Court was directed to fix the date and time, provide the authorized platform link, and facilitate its transmission through the petitioner’s advocate.

If identity was in doubt, the husband was to electronically provide a Government of India-approved identity card; he was also required to remain visible and audible and state his full name when joining.

Direct service was permitted.