Mr. Mukesh Narayan Shinde vs Mrs. Palak Mukesh Shinde Nee Palak D. Patel

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondent waives service. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission. The Petitioner husband has filed a Petition for challenging the order dated 7th February, 2012 passed by the learned I/c Principal Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent are present. Both the Counsel submit that the Petitioner husband filed a Petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty which is numbered as A2687 of 2010. During the pendency of Petition, the parties have decided to solve their matrimonial dispute amicably. Therefore, they took a decision to convert a Petition filed u/s 13(1)(ia) to a Petition for divorce by mutual consent u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Petitioner husband is residing in Mumbai. The Petitioner and the Respondent resided last in Mumbai. Therefore, the Petition filed is within jurisdiction of the Family Court, Mumbai. The Petitioner husband continued to stay in Mumbai, however, the Respondent wife left Mumbai and at present she is residing at New Jersey, U.S.A. Mr. Dineshbhai Patel father of the Respondent wife is a power of attorney holder for the Respondent wife. Parties through their Counsel and through the Power of attorney holder filed consent terms and requested the Court to convert the Petition u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the request was rejected by the Court holding that the Respondent was absent throughout and counseling was not taken place in that matter. Therefore, the Court felt it not safe to accept the consent terms and did not allow the conversion for want of verifying the actual position.

Learned Counsel for both sides submit that they requested the Court to verify the consent of the Respondent wife by video conferencing. As infrastructures are not available, the said request was turned down. The parties approached this Court for relief.

Conversion of Petition filed u/s 13(1)(ia) into a Petition u/s 13B for mutual consent is legally permissible. Thus, there is no legal hurdle into conversion of the Petition into a Petition for mutual consent. The physical presence of both the parties is generally asked and necessary to verify the authenticity of the identity of the parties and consent of the parties. However, there are peculiar circumstances like the case in hand where either of the parties cannot remain present before the Court due to certain practical difficulties i.e. Job, leave, visa etc. due to globalization noticeable educated young persons are crossing the borders of India and they are taking up jobs outside the country. So some of them can not remain present before the Family Court to give consent in matrimonial matters. There is no illegality to solve such difficulty by adopting novel and available ways. This hurdle can be crossed with the help of advanced technology of communication and new scientific methods. Though the physical presence is not possible, the Court can accept and rely on the virtual presence of the parties for verification and confirmation of the mutual consent. Even though, the counselling with the Marriage Counselor can be facilitated by virtual presence.

Thus, the learned Judge of the Family Court is directed to arrange a video conference of the Marriage Counselor with the Respondent wife in the Court with the help of Computer/ Lab top or by using of webcam. The father of the Respondent wife shall identify the Respondent wife. The online counselling can be done with the help of webcam. Thereafter, the learned Judge of the Family Court shall verify and record online consent with the help of webcam and laptop/computer. Parties to appear before the Family Court on 31st March, 2012 at 11 O'' clock to enable the Judge of the Family Court to give direction to make necessary arrangements for Counseling and Verification by video conference.

The matter is already fixed on 9th April, 2012 in the Family Court. The parties are directed to provide a laptop / web cam and other logistics required for this video conference of their own costs.

Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute, accordingly. No order as to costs. The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order