[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anupam Nanda vs Manjari Nema on 12 March, 2026
1 MP-1472-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1472 of 2026
ANUPAM NANDA
Versus
MANJARI NEMA
Appearance:
Shri Raghav Sanghi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hritvik Dixit- Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
By way of present petition challenge is made to order dated
10/01/2026 passed by the Family Court whereby the Family Court has
rejected the application for conducting second motion proceedings through
video link.
2. Case of the present petitioner/husband is that an application for
divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B has been filed before the
Family Court and the first motion took place on 23/07/2025 and the court
fixed the case for second motion on 27/01/2026. In the intervening time an
application to permit second motion hearing by way of video link was filed
before the Family Court on the ground that the petitioner/ husband is
working in Dubai (UAE) and is unable to get leave and is therefore unable to
come down to Jabalpur. The Family Court by order dated 10/01/2026
rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner/husband not getting
leave from his work is not a sufficient ground to permit hearing through
2 MP-1472-2026
video conferencing and rejected the application.
3. The counsel for the respondent/wife has appeared on advance
notice and has submitted that he has no objection if video link is permitted
for second motion hearing because prolonging of the divorce proceeding is
only prolonging the agony of the parties.
4. Upon considering the rival submissions, it is seen that the present
situation which is prevailing in the Middle East Countries, it cannot be
inferred that it would be possible for the petitioner/husband to easily come
down to Jabalpur for second motion hearing. It cannot be predicted when the
situation of travel would ease, but the present situation is not readily
conducive to travel from Dubai to India.
5. The rules have been framed known as District Courts of Madhya
Pradesh, Video Conferencing and Audio Visual Electronic Linkage Rules
2020 which also apply to Family Courts. The said rules contain provisions
for hearing through video conferencing.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present case is a fit case
where the second motion proceedings should be permitted through video
links. Only in case any such dispute comes before the Family Court which is
not possible to be resolved by virtual presence of the petitioner/husband, then
the Family Court may order his physical presence, but in a routine manner
such a request for virtual presence has been erroneously rejected by the
Family Court. More so, the said request deserves to be allowed, looking to
the present situation prevailing in the Middle Eastern Countries of Persian
Gulf.
3 MP-1472-2026
7. Therefore, the application for appearance of the
petitioner/husband for second motion hearing through video link is allowed.
The Family Court is directed to pass consequential orders to direct the Indian
Consulate/Embassy/High Commission of UAE or any other appropriate
authority as per Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules of 2020 and then shall permit
appearance of the petitioner/husband through video link.
8. At this stage counsel for the respondent/wife also expressed
willingness of the respondent/wife to appear before the Family Court through
video link, as she is also residing at Bangalore. Therefore, the wife is also
permitted to appear through video link, once this court has already permitted
the petitioner/husband to appear before the court through video link.
Therefore, the Family Court may also permit the respondent/wife to appear
before the Family Court through video link by issuing consequential orders.
9. The petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
