- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Zorawar Y.S. Pirzada v. Jasreen Kaur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI ON THE 9thOF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 682 of 2026
ZORAWAR Y.S. PIRZADA
Versus
JASREEN KAUR
Appearance:
Shri Kshitij Rajpurohit - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 Annexure P-1 in HMA 205/2025 whereby permission to appear through Video Conferencing has been denied.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards para 3 and 4 of the order passed by the Apex Court dated 06.12.2023 Annexure P-2 passed in transfer petition (Civil) 1283/2023 and submits that the Apex Court has observed that the transferee Court may permit the respondent/husband to participate in the proceedings virtually if such an application is made, but without considering the aforesaid observations, the application for virtual presence has been dismissed. Therefore, prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned order and permitting the petitioner to appear through Video
1
Conferencing in the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
3. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is not in dispute that in paras 3 and 4 of the order dated 06.12.2023 Annexure P-2, a liberty has been granted to the respondent/husband to make an application for virtual presence before the Court below. The relevant paras 3 and 4 are reproduced hereunder:-
"3. The record of the case be transferred immediately to the transferee Court.
4. Further, liberty is granted to the respondent-husband to move an appropriate application before the transferee Court for permission to participate in the proceedings virtually. If such a request is made, the transferee Court may grant such permission and direct the personal presence of the respondent- husband only when it is absolutely necessary. Further, if examination of the outstation witnesses is required and a request is made for recording the evidence through Court Commissioner, the transferee Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders."
5. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that though liberty has been granted, but it cannot be inferred that this application is to be allowed in each and every circumstances. From perusal of the impugned order dated 31.10.2025, Annexure P-1, it is apparent that taking resort to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1 the petitioner has been denied for virtual presence. This Court is of the view that the discretion exercised cannot be said to be wrong, as evidence is going to be recorded, which may involve questions infringing privacy of the parties. If it is formal date and no substantial proceedings are required to be undertaken, in those
2
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
cases, that liberty may be granted, as per the wisdom of the Family Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, this petition being devoid of any substance, fails and is hereby dismissed.
RJ
3
Alert