JUDGMENT : Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. Petitioner and respondent are wife and husband respectively. Their marriage was solemnized on 19.01.2017. However, disputes arose between them and the marriage became irretrievably broken down. 2. The original petitioner herein filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and later approached this Court seeking a direction for a time bound disposal of the case. By order dated 03.06.2019, this Court directed the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of the petition for divorce within a period of one year. 3. It is pleaded that, in the meantime, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement on realising their inability to live as husband and wife and accordingly, they jointly filed an application for divorce by mutual consent on 31.01.2020. The said petition is numbered as O.P.No.264/2020 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent husband is presently employed at Qatar, he has appointed his father as the Power of Attorney and the same has also been filed before the Family Court seeking permission to conduct the case on behalf of his son. It is also pointed out that due to the pandemic, even after the lapse of the statutory period of six months, the case has not been disposed of. Further delay would prejudice the parties and will even affect their hopes of a possible remarriage. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has preferred this original petition seeking a direction to dispose of O.P.No.264/2020 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in a time bound manner after granting permission to the parties to the litigation to submit their statement through video conference or such other similar facilities permitted by law. 4. We have considered the pleadings in the case and after hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel that in the circumstances of the case, notice to the respondent can be dispensed with. 5. The case of the petitioner and respondent is yet another unfortunate instance where the pandemic has affected the disposal of the case. The respondent is at the moment, abroad and may not be able to undertake a safe travel to Kerala. It is also not conducive in society's interest that avoidable travels are undertaken by persons in these difficult times. The case of the petitioner and respondent is yet another unfortunate instance where the pandemic has affected the disposal of the case. The respondent is at the moment, abroad and may not be able to undertake a safe travel to Kerala. It is also not conducive in society's interest that avoidable travels are undertaken by persons in these difficult times. Since the parties to the marriage are still bent upon dissolving the marriage as can be gathered from the pleadings in this case, we feel that there is no reason to delay the disposal of their case as early as possible. 6. In the matter of divorce by mutual consent, only a formal evidence is required to be taken. It is for the purpose of ascertaining whether the parties' intention to proceed with divorce by mutual consent still survives apart from satisfaction of the court regarding the bona fides of their decision to dissolve their marriage. For that purpose, to compel a party to come down all the way from Qatar, during these times of pandemic would certainly be contrary to public interest. 7. In the decision reported in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh [ (2018) 1 SCC 1 ], it has been held that in view of the scheme of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the hearing of matrimonial disputes may have to be conducted in camera. The court can permit video conferencing if both parties give consent for video conferencing by filing a memorandum to that effect, especially if the court feels that video conferencing will subserve the cause of justice. 8. In another decision reported in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur [ (2017) 8 SCC 746 ], it was held that the court can use the medium of video conferencing in cases where parties are unable to appear for joint and valid reasons for advancing the interests of justice. 9. In the decision in In Re : Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during Covid-19 Pandemic [ 2020 (2) KHC 521 ], the Supreme Court specifically directed that the robust functioning of judicial system must be ensured through the use of video conferencing technologies. It was also observed that the modern technology has enabled the court to enhance the quality and effectiveness of administration of justice. It was also observed that the modern technology has enabled the court to enhance the quality and effectiveness of administration of justice. The use of technology for the purpose of adducing evidence in certain special circumstances had been approved by the Supreme Court as early as in 2003 as per the decision reported in State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai [ (2003) 4 SCC 601 ]. 10. If there is an occasion when the process of video conferencing could be utilised by the courts of law, the present is the most apt. In the instant case, since the respondent is employed abroad, his physical presence in court, as can be seen from the pleadings in this case, is just a mere formality. It is unnecessary to compel one of the parties in this case to indulge in an international travel, undergo quarantine requirements to attend the court to give a formal deposition, then return to the country abroad and face yet another trauma of quarantine requirements. Court of law cannot be rigid in its approach, especially in these unprecedented times. In such circumstances, we feel that the petitioner is perfectly justified in seeking directions to permit the petitioner as well as the respondent herein to submit their statements/ depositions in relation to O.P.No.264/2020 through video conferencing or other such similar facilities permitted by law. In the decision reported in 2020 (2) KHC 521 mentioned earlier, it was specifically observed in clause No.7 that video conferencing shall be employed generally for hearing arguments and if both parties' consent, even for giving evidence. 11. It is evident from the pleadings in this case that the statutory period of six months is already over and both parties have no objection amongst themselves for recording of the statements through video conferencing so that their petition for divorce is decided without further delay. Petitioner has pleaded that both parties are willing to give their respective statements through video conferencing. We find no reason to refuse their request for permitting to give their statements/ depositions through video conferencing for disposing O.P.No.264/2020 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner has pleaded that both parties are willing to give their respective statements through video conferencing. We find no reason to refuse their request for permitting to give their statements/ depositions through video conferencing for disposing O.P.No.264/2020 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In view of the above, we allow this original petition and direct the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of O.P.No.264 of 2020 in a time bound manner, as follows :- (1) The video conferencing for recording the statement/ deposition of either of the parties is permitted and shall be carried out within an outer period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (2) After completing the process mentioned in clause (1) above, O.P.No.264/2020 shall be disposed of within an outer period of two weeks from the date of completion of the video conferencing. The entire process of disposing O.P.No.264 of 2020 shall be completed as stipulated above within an outer time limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed as above.