Do you have a legal query?
Read our analysis of Manav Agarwal vs Nemo (2025), where the Delhi High Court permitted mutual consent divorce proceedings through video conferencing and SPA holders.
Published by BLJ Legal | Expert NRI Divorce Lawyer in Delhi| 3rd June, 2026
The burden of a dead marriage is often difficult enough to bear. However, when spouses who have mutually decided to part ways are unable to legally dissolve their marriage due to geographical barriers, international residence, employment commitments, immigration restrictions, or procedural hurdles, the situation becomes even more distressing.
In recent years, Family Courts across Delhi and various parts of India have witnessed a significant rise in matrimonial disputes involving Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), Overseas Citizens of India (OCI Card Holders), and Indian citizens residing abroad. In many such cases, one or both spouses live outside India and seek dissolution of marriage through mutual consent. However, practical difficulties frequently arise regarding personal appearance before Family Courts, filing of affidavits, recording of statements, and participation in second motion proceedings.
A common question asked by litigants residing abroad is:
Can an NRI get mutual divorce in India without coming to India?
Other frequently searched questions include:
Can mutual divorce be done through video conferencing?
Is physical appearance mandatory in mutual divorce cases?
Can parents appear on behalf of spouses through a Special Power of Attorney?
Can second motion divorce proceedings be conducted virtually?
Can parties residing in the USA, Canada, UK, Germany, Australia or UAE obtain mutual consent divorce in India without travelling?
While there is no specific provision under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 expressly dealing with virtual matrimonial proceedings, Indian Courts have increasingly adopted a pragmatic approach to address the realities of modern life.
One such important case came before the Delhi High Court in Manav Agarwal vs Nemo, where the Court was called upon to determine whether spouses residing abroad could pursue mutual consent divorce proceedings through Special Power of Attorney holders and video conferencing without being physically present before the Family Court.
The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for NRIs, overseas Indians, and matrimonial practitioners across the country.
The petitioners were Indian citizens residing in Germany. Due to irreconcilable differences, the parties decided to dissolve their marriage through mutual consent and entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 17 February 2025. Thereafter, they filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Since both spouses were residing in Germany, they authorized close relatives through Special Power of Attorney (SPA) documents to represent them before the Court. The First Motion Petition was successfully allowed by the Family Court after recording the statements of the SPA holders. Subsequently, the parties filed their Second Motion Petition. However, despite the petition being visible on the filing portal, the matter was not being listed because personal affidavits of the parties themselves had not been filed. Aggrieved by this procedural obstacle, the petitioners approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions for listing and hearing of their mutual consent divorce petition. For a detailed understanding of the procedure, timeline, and legal requirements governing mutual consent divorce under Section 13B, readers may refer to our guide on Mutual Consent Divorce in India.
The principal issue before the Delhi High Court was:
Whether parties residing outside India can pursue mutual consent divorce proceedings through duly authorized Special Power of Attorney holders and video conferencing without physically appearing before the Family Court?
The Court was also required to determine whether the absence of personal affidavits could justify refusal to list a Second Motion Petition.
The petitioners contended that there is no statutory requirement under the Hindu Marriage Act requiring parties residing abroad to personally appear before the Court in every mutual consent divorce proceeding.
They further argued that:
Both parties were residing in Germany.
The First Motion Petition had already been allowed through the same SPA holders.
There was no legal requirement for personal affidavits in the circumstances of the case.
Insistence on physical presence would defeat the purpose of justice.
Reliance was also placed upon previous judicial precedents recognizing representation through authorized agents and virtual participation in matrimonial proceedings.
The Delhi High Court accepted the contentions advanced by the petitioners.
The Court observed that neither Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act nor Section 10 of the Family Courts Act imposes an absolute requirement of personal physical appearance in every mutual consent divorce case.
The Court further held that:
Representation through Special Power of Attorney holders is legally permissible.
Family Courts cannot insist upon requirements that are not contemplated by statute.
Parties residing abroad should not be compelled to undertake unnecessary travel where alternative mechanisms exist.
Video conferencing can be utilized to facilitate matrimonial proceedings.
Procedural technicalities should not obstruct access to justice.
The Court accordingly directed the Family Court to list the Second Motion Petition and proceed with the matter.
An important aspect of the judgment is its reliance upon the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur (2017).
In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that Courts may use video conferencing facilities and may permit genuine representation through close relatives where parties are unable to personally appear for valid reasons.
The Delhi High Court relied upon these principles to reinforce the view that matrimonial proceedings should adapt to practical realities rather than remain confined to rigid procedural formalities.
For a detailed discussion on the judgment, readers may refer to our article Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur (2017): Waiver of Cooling-Off Period in Mutual Consent Divorce Cases
The short answer is: Yes, in appropriate cases. The judgment does not create an automatic exemption from personal appearance. However, it recognizes that where genuine difficulties exist and proper safeguards are available, Family Courts may permit alternative modes of participation.
This is particularly relevant for:
NRIs residing in the USA
Indian citizens working in Canada
Couples residing in Germany
Professionals based in the UK
Indians residing in Australia
Families settled in UAE, Singapore or other countries.
For such individuals, repeated travel to India for procedural hearings may be unnecessary where participation can effectively occur through virtual means.
While the present judgment addresses participation through video conferencing and Special Power of Attorney holders, parties residing abroad often face additional issues relating to jurisdiction, overseas documentation, attestation requirements, and recognition of foreign divorce decrees. Readers may also refer to our detailed guide on NRI Mutual Consent Divorce in India for a comprehensive discussion of these issues.
A Special Power of Attorney (SPA) is a legal document through which a person authorizes another individual to act on his or her behalf for a specific purpose.
In matrimonial litigation, SPA holders are often:
Parents
Siblings
Close relatives
Trusted family members
Depending upon the authority granted, the SPA holder may:
Sign pleadings
File applications
Appear before Court
Verify documents
Coordinate with advocates
The present judgment reinforces the legal validity of such representation in appropriate cases involving spouses residing abroad.
Family Courts should examine the facts of each case rather than insist upon mechanical compliance.
Technology can be effectively used to facilitate matrimonial proceedings.
The judgment is particularly relevant for parties residing outside India.
Authorized representatives can play an important role where parties face genuine difficulties in appearing personally.
The Court emphasized substance over technicalities.
The Delhi High Court's decision in Manav Agarwal vs Nemo (2025) represents another important step towards modernizing matrimonial litigation in India.
By recognizing the validity of video conferencing and Special Power of Attorney representation in appropriate circumstances, the Court has reaffirmed that access to justice should not depend upon geographical location. The judgment offers much-needed clarity for NRIs, overseas Indians, and spouses residing abroad who seek mutual consent divorce in India without unnecessary travel, expense, and delay.
Advocate Shasha Jain can help you evaluate the legal and procedural aspects of your case and guide you through the appropriate course of action.
Get in touch with BLJ Legal for a confidential consultation.
📍 Address: Chamber No. 314, Patiala House Court, Near India Gate, Supreme Court, New Delhi 110001
📞 Phone: 8851632512
📧 Email: legalblj@gmail.com
