Family Courts Should Not Insist On Physical Presence Of Parties While Presenting Petition And For Future Hearings: Madras High Court

Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that virtual proceedings provided an opportunity to modernize the system and make it more affordable and citizen-friendly. The court thus held that family courts should make use of the video conferencing facilities without insisting on the physical presence of the parties and should not raise technical objections by insisting on the physical presence at any stage.

“Virtual proceedings provide an opportunity to modernise the system by making it more affordable and citizen friendly, enabling the aggrieved to access justice from any part of the country in the world. Thus the Family Court to ensure that such a system of conducting the proceedings through video conferencing is put to usage without insisting the presence of petitioner even from the time of first presentation till the conclusion of proceedings. The Family Court henceforth not to raise technical objections and insist on physical appearance of petitioner/parties at any stage,” the court observed.

The court noted that Section 530 of the BNSS emphasized holding even criminal trials through electronic mode. The court added that recently, the justice dispensation system has seen much advancement in the use of technology, and the family court's insistence on physical presence would defeat the very purpose of the video conferencing facility.

“In the recent past, justice dispensation system has seen much advancement in the use of technology in conducting the Court proceedings, to use the system of video conferencing. The recently introduced BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) (New Criminal Procedure Code) Section 530 emphasis even in criminal cases trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode,” the court said.

The court thus held that Family Courts should allow petitions to be filed either by the parties directly or by the Power of Attorneys of the parties provided that they are properly registered and adjudicated. It added that the Power of Attorneys, who should not be a lawyer, should be allowed to appear and prosecute the case by presenting the petition with relevant documents, materials and proof affidavit required for the case in physical form.

The court added that the parties could be present through virtual mode from their respective places and place of location and the courts can verify the petition, proof affidavit, documents produced and record the same as evidence and pass appropriate orders.

The court was hearing criminal revision petitions against the technical and procedural objections raised by the Family Court in entertaining the petition for Divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

In all the cases, the parties intended to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and had filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for the same. Since the parties were residing in the USA and New Zealand, they had filed interim applications to allow them to attend the court through video conferencing and to allow their power of attorneys to conduct the case on their behalf. The family court however insisted that the parties attend the proceedings through the consulate.

The counsel for the parties submitted that the Family Court failed to consider that as per Rule 3 of the Madras High Court Video-Conferencing Rules 2020, a coordinator was mandatory only when the witness or a person accused of an offense was to be examined. It was submitted that the present matrimonial cases were civil in nature and it was not possible for the parties to appear through the consulate considering the 12.5 hours of time difference in the functioning of the Family Court and the consulate.

The court noted that the majority of petitions filed under Section 13B seeking divorce by mutual consent were kept in abeyance or stalled due to the non-appearance of parties in person as in most cases, the parties faced some difficulties in appearing personally due to various reasons. The court thus found it necessary to issue directions to obviate the difficulties faced by the parties.

The court thus ordered accordingly and directed the Family Court to take the petitions on file.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms.V.Chethana, Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for Ms.M.Karthikeyani, Mr.Rahul Jagannathan

Counsel for Respondent: Ms.Revathi G. Mohan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

Case Title: G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar

Case No: C.R.P.Nos.1994 & 89 of 2024