US-Based Husband May Appear By Video At Mutual-Consent Divorce Hearings, MP HC Says, Citing Mediation Efforts And Difficulty Attending Each Date

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to permit the husband, who resides in the United States, to appear by video conference in the Section 13-B proceedings

The court held

The High Court allowed the husband to appear before the Family Court by video conference and directed the Family Court to expedite the proceedings.

It also directed

The parties were directed to remain present on 17 January 2027, with the husband permitted to attend remotely.

The petition was disposed of.

01Facts

The parties married on 24 June 2019 and have a daughter.

p. 1

They had been living separately since March 2021, and, after attempts at mediation, filed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

p. 1

The husband, who resides in the United States, sought permission to appear by video conference and to have his father appear as his power-of-attorney holder.

p. 1

The Family Court rejected his application, relying on *Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh*.

p. 1

The husband challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to permit the husband, who resides in the United States, to appear by video conference in the Section 13-B proceedings

pp. 1–3

ii.2. Whether the circumstances warranted the High Court’s exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution

p. 3

03Law Applied

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 governs divorce by mutual consent.

pp. 1–2

The Court considered *Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh*, (2018) 1 SCC 1, concerning mediation and conciliation in matrimonial proceedings, and *Rucha v. Kush Dewoo*, M.P. No. 7735 of 2023, which observed that *Santhini* did not prohibit recording preliminary evidence in Section 13-B proceedings by video conference.

pp. 1–2

It also relied on *Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur*, (2017) 8 SCC 746, in considering the use of video conferencing and representation by close relatives where a party has a just and valid reason for not appearing in person.

pp. 3–4

Article 227 empowers the High Court to intervene where the lower court has materially erred in its approach.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the Family Court had relied on *Santhini* without adequately considering the case-specific circumstances, including the husband’s residence in the United States, the parties’ prior settlement efforts, and the hardship of requiring his physical attendance on each hearing date.

pp. 1–3

Following the reasoning in *Rucha* and *Amardeep Singh*, it held that video-conference attendance could be permitted in the circumstances.

pp. 2–3

The Family Court’s approach was therefore insufficiently attentive to the facts and warranted supervisory intervention under Article 227.

pp. 2–3