In a ruling clarifying procedural requirements under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court held that a spouse cannot file a writ petition on behalf of the other without a specifically executed power of attorney. The Court observed that only the person whose legal rights are directly affected, or a duly authorised representative, is entitled to seek judicial relief.
The case arose when a Malappuram-based woman filed a writ petition on behalf of her NRI-husband, seeking rectification of his property classification. The petition challenged the inclusion of 12.48 acres of land, co-owned by the husband, as ‘wetland’ under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, asserting that the land was, in fact, dry land. The couple had previously applied to the Sub-Collector to correct the classification, but their application was rejected.
The petitioner contended that, since her husband was working abroad, she was entitled to file the writ on his behalf, citing Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court, however, noted that the provision only permits a spouse to be a competent witness in proceedings involving the other spouse, and does not authorise litigation in their stead.
Justice C.S. Dias observed, “Rule 145 unequivocally mandates that the writ petitions filed under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution have to be filed by the petitioner or his duly authorised Advocate. Rule 19 prescribes the form and manner in which a vakalath has to be attested to appoint an Advocate. In addition to the above, writ petitions have to be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the party. There is no provision under the Rules enabling a nonparty spouse to file a writ petition on behalf of a party spouse, without a duly executed power of attorney, in the status of an agent.”
The Court further emphasised that, under Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, only recognised agents and advocates holding a valid power of attorney may act on behalf of litigants. In the absence of such authorisation, the petitioner could not represent her husband in the proceedings.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition but clarified that the petitioner may re-approach the Court if her husband executes a power of attorney authorising her to act on his behalf.
Case Title: XYZ vs. The Sub Collector, Tirur and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 2862 oF 2025
Coram: Justice C.S.DIAS
Advocate for Petitioner: Advs. C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, P. Abdul Nishad, Istinaf Abdullah, Thasneem A.P., Dhilna Dileep, Surya S.R., Arshid. M.S.
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Deepa V., Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerala_New_High_Court.jpg