Gujarat High Court
Mandeepsingh Indrajitsingh ... vs Manpreetkaur Mandeepsingh ... on 22 November, 2021
Bench: B.N. Karia
C/SCA/6094/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6094 of 2020
==========================================================
MANDEEPSINGH INDRAJITSINGH MAKHIJA THROUGH POA HOLDER
CHIRAGKUMAR VINAYKUMAR SAINI
Versus
MANPREETKAUR MANDEEPSINGH MAKHIJA D/O MOHANJEETSINGH S.
BAGGA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MANMEETSINGH P CHHABRA(9140) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAL. UNWALA WITH MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 22/11/2021
ORAL ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following relief :
1.1 a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and
allow this petition.
b) Your Lorships may grant the
deletion/modification of the direction set in condition
no. 4 (E) as stated in order dated 6.2.2020 passed by
the Hon'ble Family Court in H.M.P No. 467 of 2017.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manmeetsingh P.
Chhabra for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate
Mr. Jal Unwala with Ms. Tejal A. Vashi for the respondent.
C/SCA/6094/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021
3. Having heard learned Advocate for the respective
parties, the impugned order passed by the Family Court
below Exh. 42, 56, 57, 61, 62,69,71 in Family Suit No. 467
of 2017, it appears that only grievance raised by the
present petitioner is imposing cost of Rs 50,000/-(fifty
thousand) towards availing of video conferencing facility
of the Family Court. The Court Commissioner was
appointed by the Court directing to record the evidence of
the petitioner and to record the cross-examination of the
respondent as per the convenience. Remuneration of Rs
50,000/- was to be deposited by the petitioner before the
Family Court. Learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Transfer Petition No. 1278 of 2016 dated (Civil)
No. 1278 of 2016 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has
encouraged the Video Conferencing system. Some relevant
paras are read as under :
1. The Family Courts Act, 1984 has been enacted at a point
in time when modern technology ( atleast as we know it
today) which enables persons separated by spatial
distances to communicate with each other face to fact was
not the order of the day or, in any case, was not as fully
developed. That is no reason for any Court-especially for
this Court which sets precedent for the nation-to exclude
the application of technology to facilitate the judicial
process.
2. Appropriate deployment of technology facilitates access
to justice. Litigation under the Family Courts Act 1984 is not
an exception to this principle. This Court must be averse to
C/SCA/6094/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021
judicially laying down a restraint on such use of technology
which facilitates access to justice to persons in conflict,
including those involved in conflicts within the family.
Modern technology is above all a facilitator, enabler and
leveler.
3. Video Conferencing is a technology which allows
users in different locations to hold face to face meetings.
Video Conferencing is being used extensively the world
over (India being no exception) in on line teaching,
administration, meetings, negotiation, meditation and
telemedicine among a myriad other uses. Video
Conferencing reduces, cost, time, carbon footprint a nd the
like.
4. The Family Court is entitled to take the benefit
of counsellors, medical experts and persons
professionally engaged in promoting the welfare of the
family.
6. The above provisions -far from excluding the
use of video conferencing - are sufficiently enabling
to allow the Family Court to utilise technological
advances to facilitate the purpose of achieving justice
in resolving family conflicts. There may arise a variety
of situations wherein in today's age and time parties
are unable to come face to face for counseling or can
do so only at such expense, delay or hardship which
will defeat justice. One or both spouses may face
genuine difficulties arising from the compusions of
employment, family circumstances (including the needs
C/SCA/6094/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021
of young children) disability and social or economic
handicaps in accessing a Court situated in a location
distant from where either or both parties reside or
work. It would inappropriate to deprive the Family
Court which is vested with such wide powers and
procedural flexibiity to adopt video conferencing as
facilitative tool, where it is convenient and readily
available. Whether video conferencing should be
allowed must be determined on a case to case analysis
to best effectuate the concern of providing just
solutions. Far from such a procedure being excluded by
the law, it will sub serve the purpose of law."
4. It appears that the present petitioner is staying at Unit
number :0837, Near Gurudwara, Unit type :CAS2D10, Unit
Address : 290, Lake Ave N, Hamilton , State : Ontario Canada,
Zip : L8E, 3A2. As per the submission made by learned Advocate
for the petitioner, petitioner cannot afford such a heavy cost
imposed by the Court below as he is working as Rojamdar daily
wager and without any reason the impugned order was passed by
imposing heavy cost of Rs 50,000/-.
5. Having considered the facts of the present petition and the
submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for the
respective parties, it appears that HMP No. 467 of 2017 was
preferred by the respondent herein on 14.3.2017 before the Family
Court, Ahmedabad. It also appears that summons was served to
the present petitioner by issuing a public notice in " Indian
Express" newspaper circulating at Delhi on 27.6.2017. The
present petitioner appeared before the Court below on 23.1.2018.
As the petitioner is staying out of India, it appears that request
C/SCA/6094/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021
was made by the present petitioner to conduct proceedings of
HMP No. 467 of 2017 pending before the Family Court through
video conferencing. As video conferencing facility is available
before the Family Court at Ahmedabad and Honble Apex Court
has also encouraged to utilise such a technology and considering
the facts of the present case., according to the opinion of this Court
imposing cost of Rs 50,000/- towards availing of video
conferencing facility of the Family Court is somewhere harsh and
improper. The petitioner is required to be permitted to avail the
video conferencing facility available with the Family Court
Ahmedabad free of cost. Accordingly the petition is partly allowed.
Cost of Rs 50,000/- imposed by the Family Court dated 6.2.2021
towards availing of video conferencing facility of the Family Court
is quashed and set aside. Other conditions imposed by the Court
below order dated 6.2.2021 shall remain as it is.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per the
order passed by this Court dated 9.3.2020 to deposit Rs 50,000/-
for meeting the charges payable to the Court Commissioner for
recording evidence through video conferencing is deposited by the
petitioner.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
MARY VADAKKAN
