Family Courts must adopt a litigant-friendly approach to video conferencing, avoiding hyper-technical hurdles and excessive appointment of commissioners.

The petitioners married on 23.02.2024 but separated on 12.03.2024 due to irreconcilable differences

They filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad

Petitioner No. 2 (husband) resides in Australia and sought permission to record his consent for the "second motion" via video conferencing (VC)

Though the Family Court initially permitted VC, it imposed 15 onerous conditions—including the appointment of a Court Commissioner to verify consent, the requirement of an Embassy-appointed Coordinator, and specific technical encryption standards—and refused to forward the order to the Indian Consulate

The petitioners challenged these procedural hurdles under Article 227 of the Constitution

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regarding mutual consent divorce

In Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1, it was established that Family Courts may exercise discretion to allow video conferencing if both parties file a joint application

Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which empower the court to simplify procedures and mandate the recording of evidence in the presence of the Judge

Gujarat High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021, emphasizing that technology should facilitate rather than obstruct access to justice

The High Court found that the Family Court adopted a "hyper-technical" and "nit-picking" approach that "smothered" the process of justice rather than smoothening it

The Court reasoned that the 15 directions issued were unnecessary hurdles, particularly the requirement for an Embassy Coordinator and the appointment of a Court Commissioner

Critically, the Court held that the "subjective satisfaction" regarding a spouse's consent must be recorded by the Judge personally and cannot be delegated to a Commissioner

The Court observed that the VC Rules are intended for formal witnesses and should be applied with "human sensitivity" and a "litigant-friendly approach" in matrimonial matters

It concluded that by complicating a simple request for assent, the lower court violated the spirit of technology-enabled justice

Petitioner No. 2 is permitted to appear via video conferencing from a portable device at his residence in Australia; the Family Court was directed to set a specific time, provide the link directly, and verify identity if doubted

The Court ordered the circulation of this judgment to all Family Courts in Gujarat to prevent similar procedural obstructions