No Need for Physical Presence in Mutual Consent Divorces, Video Conferencing Approved: Madras HC Issued Guidelines

In a recent Judgement, Madras High Court, presided by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, delivered a significant ruling addressing the use of technology in mutual consent divorce cases. The case involved petitions for divorce by couples residing outside India, and the court issued several crucial directions facilitating the use of video conferencing for such proceedings, easing the procedural burdens on parties.
The court was hearing a series of civil revision petitions where the petitioners, estranged couples, sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. All the couples were residing abroad, either in the United States or New Zealand, and faced difficulties in attending court proceedings in India due to time zone differences and travel constraints. The primary issue was the insistence of lower courts on physical appearances or appearances via Indian Consulates, which created practical challenges for the petitioners.
The petitioners had sought the court's direction to allow them to participate in proceedings through video conferencing from their homes, instead of having to visit consulates, which was causing significant inconvenience due to the 12.5-hour time difference between India and the US.
In this judgment, the High Court streamlined the process for such cases, issuing the following directions:
No Requirement for Physical Appearance: The court ruled that family courts should not insist on the physical presence of petitioners at the time of filing petitions or during hearings. Instead, appearances through virtual modes are permitted.
Power of Attorney for Filings: It was directed that registered power of attorneys could file petitions on behalf of the parties. Power of attorneys must be duly registered or adjudicated, but legal practitioners cannot act as power of attorneys.
Use of Video Conferencing for Appearances: The court emphasized that parties can appear via video conferencing from their respective locations, and the court should verify their identity and intent to divorce based on relevant documents submitted online.
Virtual Recording of Evidence: Evidence, including affidavits and other documents, can be recorded via virtual mode, without the need for parties to travel to Indian Consulates for verification. The court found this insistence impractical and counter to the principles of justice.
Power of Attorneys in Court: While the petitioners can appear virtually, their power of attorneys must be physically present in court to file the necessary documents and assist in identifying the petitioners during virtual proceedings.
The court highlighted that Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which governs mutual consent divorces, does not require intense adjudication like other contested matters. The primary duty of the court is to ensure that the parties are living separately and that the consent for divorce is genuine, free from coercion, fraud, or undue influence.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar also referred to the Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur case, noting that the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B is not mandatory but directory. In instances where reunion is impossible, prolonging the proceedings serves no purpose and only exacerbates the agony of the parties involved.
Moreover, the court underscored that rules and procedures are "handmaids of justice", meant to facilitate rather than hinder legal proceedings. In this case, strict adherence to technical procedures—such as appearing before Indian Consulates—would have defeated the very purpose of the legislation, which aims to provide an amicable and efficient divorce process.
The judgment also stressed the growing importance of technology in the judicial process. Citing the Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam case, the court reinforced that in matrimonial cases, video conferencing is a suitable alternative to personal appearances. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (New Criminal Procedure Code) was also referenced, highlighting that even criminal cases now accommodate video conferencing for trials and evidence recording.
In light of these observations, the court set aside the objections raised by the Principal Family Court, Chennai, and directed the lower courts to adopt a more flexible and technologically advanced approach to divorce petitions under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The High Court’s ruling simplifies the process for petitioners seeking divorce from abroad, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not become roadblocks to justice. This judgment not only fosters a smoother judicial process but also acknowledges the realities of modern-day global living and the advancements in technology.

Date of Decision: October 18, 2024
G. Shrilakshmi v. Anirudh Ramkumar
Aishwarya Sridhar v. Harihara Venkataraman Balasubramanian
V. Nisha v. Ramkumar Narayanasamy