Gujarat High Court
Vaidehi D/O Maheshkumar Dave And W/O … vs Na on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5760 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
VAIDEHI D/O MAHESHKUMAR DAVE AND W/O
GAURAVKUMAR VYAS & ANR.
Versus
NA
=====================================================
Appearance:
SHRIKAR H. BHATT(2573) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 23/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by the orders passed below Exhibits-
15 & 16 in HMP No.1472 of 2025 filed under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’)
for divorce by mutual consent, the petitioners have preferred this
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 Petitioners married each other on 23.02.2024 at
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
Ahmedabad, Gujarat in accordance with the Hindu rites,
customs and rituals in presence of their family members,
relatives and friends, and the marriage was registered with the
Registrar of Marriage, Ahmedabad. However, due to differences,
discords and influence as well as incompatibility, both the
petitioners are living separately from each other since
12.03.2024 and the marital relationship is snapped since
thereon.
2.2 Since the petitioners found that there is no possibility
of reunion, they decided to part away from each other’s life, and
therefore, jointly filed an application under Section 13B of ‘the
Act’ before the Family Court, Ahmedabad seeking divorce by
mutual consent. On 05.05.2025, it came to be registered as
Family Suit No.1472 of 2025.
2.3 Both the petitioners have filed their affidavits in
support of relief of mutual divorce claimed in the petition,
thereby they have moved first motion. The petitioner No.2,
namely Gaurav Dinesh Vyas, since lived in Australia, sworn his
affidavit at the place of his residence and submitted it to the
learned Family Court in order to record the consent of both the
petitioners being the second motion. In the Family Suit. The
petitioner No.2, with the consent of petitioner No.1 preferred an
application to examine him through video conferencing at
Exhibit-14. However, the learned Family Court disposed of that
application permitting him to file the application in the
appropriate format, as per the Schedule II of the Gujarat High
Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts (High Court and
Subordinate Courts), 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
2.4 The petitioner No.2, again with the consent of the
petitioner No.1 following the direction issued by the Family
Court, filed an application as per the Schedule II under the
Exhibit-15 and prayed for permission to conduct video
conference through portable device to record his consent and to
complete the second motion. The learned Family Court passed
the order below Exhibit-15 with rider of directions. In all, 15
directions were issued permitting the petitioner to record his
consent through video conference. However, the 15 directions
issued by the learned Family Court found to be inroads by the
petitioner No.2, hence, he challenged the said order by this
petition.
2.5 Another application was moved at Exhibit-16
requesting the Court to forward the order below Exhibit-15 to
the Indian Consulate Office at Australia for fixing the date and
time for video conference. That application was rejected by the
Family Court observing that party can produce the certified copy
of the order before the Indian Consulate and can obtain the date
and time period from the Indian Consulate to join the Court with
video conferencing.
2.6 Being aggrieved, both the petitioners have filed this
joint petition.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shrikar H. Bhatt
appearing for the petitioners.
4. In a petition filed under Section 13B of ‘the Act’ for
mutual divorce, no party is contesting, and therefore, no one has
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
been arraigned as a respondent. It is in this background, the
Court is examining the legality and veracity of the order below
Exhibits-15 and 16.
5. Let me first visit the larger Bench judgment in case of
Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 1,
whereby the larger Bench overruled the judgment of Krishna
Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 150,
whereby the Supreme Court recognized the use of video
conferencing in the matter if both the parties jointly give the
request to come out from the language of Section 11 of the
Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Family
Court Act‘) and held that video conferencing is possible mode.
Paragraphs 46 & 47 thereof reads as under:-
“46. We, as advised at present, constrict our analysis to the
provisions of the 1984 Act. First, as we notice, the
expression of desire by the wife or the husband is whittled
down and smothered if the Court directs that the
proceedings shall be conducted through the use of
videoconferencing. As is demonstrable from the analysis of
paragraph 14 of the decision, the Court observed that
wherever one or both the parties make a request for the use
of videoconferencing, the proceedings may be conducted by
way of videoconferencing obviating the need of the parties to
appear in person. The cases where videoconferencing has
been directed by this Court are distinguishable. They are
either in criminal cases or where the Court found it
necessary that the witness should be examined through
videoconferencing. In a case where the wife does not give
consent for videoconferencing, it would be contrary to
Section 11 of the 1984 Act. To say that if one party makes
the request, the proceedings may be conducted by
videoconferencing mode or system would be contrary to the
language employed under Section 11 of the 1984 Act. The
said provision, as is evincible to us, is in consonance with
the constitutional provision which confer affirmative rightsPage 4 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
on women that cannot be negatived by the Court. The
Family Court also has the jurisdiction to direct that the
proceedings shall be held in camera if it so desires and,
needless to say, the desire has to be expressed keeping in
view the provisions of the 1984 Act.
47. The language employed in Section 11 of the 1984 Act
is absolutely clear. It provides that if one of the parties
desires that the proceedings should be held in camera, the
Family Court has no option but to so direct. This Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction, cannot take away such a
sanctified right that law recognizes either for the wife or the
husband. That apart, the Family Court has the duty to make
efforts for settlement. Section 23(2) of the 1955 Act
mandates for reconciliation. The language used under
Section 23(2) makes it an obligatory duty on the part of the
court at the first instance in every case where it is possible,
to make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation
between the parties where it is possible to do so consistent
with the nature and circumstances of the case. There are
certain exceptions as has been enumerated in the proviso
which pertain to incurably of unsound mind or suffering
from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy or suffering
from venereal disease in a communicable form or has
renounced the world by entering any religious order or has
not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years,
etc. These are the exceptions carved out by the legislature.
The Court has to play a diligent and effective role in this
regard.”
6. Recently, the coordinate Bench in case of Palakben
Ravi Luni D/O Dhamasibhai Gobarbhai Rabari & Anr. v.
None in Neutral Citation No.2026:GUJHC:17292, relying
upon the judgment of Santhini (Supra) also held that the mode
of video conferencing is available to Family Court in mutual
conciliation proceedings. The observation of the coordinate
Bench in paragraph 5 reads as under:-
“5. The learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
order, relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court
in the case of Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh reported in
(2018) 1 SCC 1, and rejected the application on the ground
that participation through video conferencing in conciliation
proceedings would not amount to effective participation. This
Court has referred to the judgment rendered in the case of
Santhini (supra), wherein the matter before the Apex Court
pertained to a challenge to the orders passed by different
High Courts in relation to transfer petitions concerning
proceedings pending before various Family Courts. The Apex
Court, in the case of Krishnaveni Nagam v. Harish Nagam
reported in (2017) 4 SCC 150, had held that permitting the
husband to participate in proceedings instituted under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 through video conferencing would
meet the ends of justice in cases where transfer petitions are
filed and the husband is residing at a distant place. The
Apex Court thereafter referred the said issue to a larger
Bench to determine whether the ratio laid down in
Krishnaveni Nagam (supra) continued to hold the field.
Ultimately, the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Santhini
(supra) overruled the judgment in Krishnaveni Nagam
(supra) and held as under:-
“Therefore, we are disposed to think that once a
settlement fails and if both the parties give consent that a
witness can be examined in video conferencing, that can
be allowed. That apart, when they give consent that it is
necessary in a specific factual matrix having regard to the
convenience of the parties, the Family Court may allow the
prayer for videoconferencing. That much of discretion, we
are inclined to think can be conferred on the Family Court.
Such a limited discretion will not run counter to the
legislative intention that permeates the 1984 Act.
However, we would like to add a safeguard. A joint
application should be filed before the Family Court Judge,
who shall take a decision. However, we make it clear that
in a transfer petition, no direction can be issued for video
conferencing. We reiterate that the discretion has to rest
with the Family Court to be exercised after the court
arrives at a definite conclusion that the settlement is not
possible and both parties file a joint application or each
party filing his/her consent memorandum seeking
hearing by videoconferencing.
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
57 Be it noted, sometimes, transfer petitions are filed
seeking transfer of cases instituted under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and cases
registered under the IPC. As the cases under the said Act
and the IPC have not been adverted to in Krishna Veni
Nagam (supra) or in the order of reference in these cases,
we do intend to advert to the same.
58 In view of the aforesaid analysis, we sum up our
conclusion as follows :-
58.1 In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in
particular Section 11, the hearing of matrimonial disputes
may have to be conducted in camera.
58.2 After the settlement fails and when a joint
application is filed or both the parties file their respective
consent memorandum for hearing of the case through
videoconferencing before the concerned Family Court, it
may exercise the discretion to allow the said prayer.
58.3 After the settlement fails, if the Family Court feels it
appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case that videoconferencing will sub-serve the cause
of justice, it may so direct.
58.4 In a transfer petition, video conferencing cannot be
directed.
58.5 Our directions shall apply prospectively.
58.6 The decision in Krishna Veni Nagam (supra) is
overruled to the aforesaid extent
59. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel.
60. The matters be placed before the appropriate Bench
for consideration of the transfer petitions on their own
merits.”
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
7. It is in this background that I appreciate the legality
and veracity of the impugned order passed below Exhibits-15
and 16. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that perhaps
the learned Family Court failed to understand applicability of
‘the Rules’ notified by the High Court of Gujarat dated 2 nd June,
2021, more particularly, its object and reasons. Firstly, the
learned Family Court discarded the application Exhibit-14 on
the ground that one has to file the application as per the
Schedule II of ‘the Rules’. The approach of the learned Family
Court, therefore, appears to be hyper-technical.
8. Moreover, the learned Family Court, without
examining whether ‘the Rules’ are applicable in a video
conferencing to be carried in a matrimonial proceedings,
whereby joint request has been made by the petitioners to
examine one of the spouse living outside India passed impugned
orders. Nonetheless, the petitioners preferred application at
Exhibit-15 following the command in order below Exhibit-14.
The joint request was moved. The application, though, was
allowed, the learned Family Court issued in all 15 directions to
be followed by the applicant to verify his own consent through
video conferencing on the affidavit sworn in at Australia and
tendered before the Court.
9. In its range of direction, the learned Family Court
firstly reminded the petitioner to disclose the name of
Coordinator at remote point by the concerned Embassy, without
examining that whether concerned Embassy or Consulate at
Australia has appointed any person as Coordinator or whether
the Rule 9 of ‘the Rules’ would apply in such a case. Further, it
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
directed that the official email ID, name of the Coordinator along
with phone number shall have to be disclosed. Further, the
petitioner was directed to obtain the time slot for proposed video
conference from the Coordinator of the remote point and same
was to be informed to the Court. Court Commissioner is
appointed to verify content of affidavit during video conferencing.
10. The petitioner was further directed to deposit
Rs.10,000/- towards the expenditure and remuneration of the
Court Commissioner, whereby Rs.8,000/- was to be paid to the
Commissioner and Coordinator at the remote point was to be
paid Rs.2,000/-. The expenses for Coordinator at remote point
was to be expended by the petitioner. Petitioner was also
directed to disclose the nearest remote point, particulars of
Coordinators and obtain time slot for remote point, etc. One
Mr.Jatin Tathagar was appointed as a Court Commissioner to
ascertain the truthfulness of the affidavit filed by one of the
petitioners – the husband and was also appointed to inquire
about the consent given by him. The petitioner – husband’s
identity was also ordered to be verified. Secured video conference
and end-to-end encryption was also expected to protect the data
and privacy, as approved by the Government and there are
several other directions also, which were issued.
11. Before I analyze the legality of these directions and
also visit the order passed below Exhibit-15. Let me scrutinize
the order passed in the application below Exhibit-16, whereby
the petitioner prayed that the Court may forward the order
passed in Exhibit-15 to the Indian Consulate at Melbourne,
email ID of which has been given in the petition or may permit
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
the portable video conferencing in view of Rule 38 of ‘the Rules’.
The application was rejected on the ground that the Court is not
obliged to inform the Coordinator at the remote point by
forwarding the order below Exhibit-15. The learned Family
Court, while taking an overly technical approach, failed to notice
the rudimentary facts. ‘The Rules’ are meant to examine the
formal witnesses, where the Court or Court monitered video
conferencing point and remote video conferencing point are well
within the domain of the Court.
12. In the case on hand, where the spouse wants a video
conferencing to give his assent in a second motion in a petition
for mutual consent, Family Court ordered to follow multiple
eventuality in form of directions, which virtually negate the
request of video conferencing, I fail to understand that how
Family Court can pass such kind of the orders, which instead of
smoothening the process, smothered it. The two petitioners, i.e.
husband and wife, willingly want a divorce and one of them
wants to connect the Court through video conference as he lives
in Australia. However, the nit-picking approach of the learned
Family Court frustrated their valid desire and request. The
learned Family Court has unnecessarily made the issue
overcomplicated and fastidious. This Court does not subscribe to
such approach of the learned Family Court.
13. What strange found from the impugned order besides
the aforesaid ultra-technical approach that the learned Family
Court, instead of verifying the assent of spouse – husband in a
second motion, appointed the Commissioner to do so. The
subjective satisfaction was required to be recorded by the
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
learned Family Judge and not by any Court Commissioner. The
learned Family Court, while appointing the Commissioner, to
record the assent of one of the petitioners – spouse – husband,
did not record any reasons, but speculatively passed the order.
Therefore, such order deserves no consideration.
14. Owing to Section 14 of the ‘Family Court Act‘, the
Family Court is entitled to set its own procedure regardless of
relevancy or admissibility of evidence defined in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, but in view of Sections 15 and 16 of the
‘Family Court Act‘, Judge is required to record the oral evidence
in his presence and may permit to file an affidavit, but recording
the assent of one of the spouse i.e. husband, living outside India
by appointing the Court Commissioner is unknown procedure.
15. Let me say that technology should serve as
handmaiden to justice, and not a hurdle in the path. It must
remain simple, reliable and accessible to litigant. If technology or
its adoption becomes complex, it risks delaying justice rather
than delivering it. Court, therefore, must adopt technology with
litigant friendly approach, with focus on fairness, efficiency and
human sensitivity. In essence, technology should advance the
cause of justice and not chaos. Technology should ensure that
timely justice becomes a reality with care.
16. In the background of aforesaid reasons, without
hesitation, this Court holds that the learned Family Court, by
passing the orders below Exhibits-15 and 16, instead of helping
the litigant in advancing their cause in getting justice, instead
created hurdles in the path. Thus, the impugned orders deserve
to be set aside.
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
17. In the aforesaid circumstances and reason, the
petition succeeds. The impugned orders passed below Exhibits-
15 and 16 in HMP No.1472 of 2025 are hereby quashed and set
aside.
17.1 The petitioner – Mr. Gauravkumar S/o. Dineshkumar
Vyas, living in Australia, is permitted to appear through video
conferencing from his portable device from his own place;
however, that video conference shall take place during the
working of the family Court hours.
17.2 The learned Family Court is directed to issue order
setting up the date and time for the video conferencing to record
the assent of Mr. Gauravkumar S/o. Dineshkumar Vyas. The
time shall be as per the Indian Standard Time during the family
Court hours.
17.3 Further, the learned Family Court shall forward the
video conferencing link of the platform authorized by the High
Court and used by the Family Court to the email ID of the
petitioner; shall also inform it through the learned advocate for
the petitioner for onward transmission.
17.4 If the doubt on the identity of the petitioner arise or
raised by the other petitioner – Ms. Vaidehi D/o. Maheshkumar
Dave, Mr. Gauravkumar S/o. Dineshkumar Vyas shall forward
his identity card recognized by the Government of India through
electronic mode.
17.5 During the video conferencing, from his own portable
device, Mr. Gauravkumar S/o. Dineshkumar Vyas shall ensure
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5760/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
that he remains visible and audible throughout the entire video
conferencing session and while joining the video conferencing, he
shall mention his full name.
18. In the aforesaid terms, the petition is allowed.
Registry to circulate copy of this order to all Family
Courts in the State of Gujarat.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 20:52:11 IST 2026
