Madras High Court
Arun Kumar Rajendra Kumar vs Vaishnavi Sridhar on 30 October, 2024
C.R.P.No.4180 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.4180 of 2024
Arun Kumar Rajendra Kumar ... Petitioner
-Vs-
Vaishnavi Sridhar ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to take
OP.SR.No.4493 of 2024 that was returned on 21.08.2024 on the file of the Principal
Judge, Family Court at Chennai through virtual mode through his duly authorised
power
For Petitioner : Ms.K.Subashini Suresh
for M/s.Chennai Law Associates
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition seeks for a direction to the Principal Judge, Family
Court Chennai to number O.P.(SR) No.4493 of 2024. The said O.P., is filed through
the Power of Attorney and to process the application further.
2. The petitioner is the husband. He entered into matrimony with the
respondent on 01.06.2023 at Chennai. The same was registered on 02.06.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Alleging that he was meted out with acts of cruelty by the respondent wife, he filed
a petition invoking Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. As the petitioner is
a software engineer employed abroad, he authorized his father to file an application
on his behalf.
3. The learned Family Judge directed that the petition must be filed only by
the petitioner and hence, returned the said application. The power agent re-
presented the petition relying upon a judgment of this Court report in Aishwarya
Sridharan -vs- Harihara Venkataraman Balasubramanian (CDJ 2023 MHC
6480) . The papers were yet returned stating that the previous returns have not
been complied with. Hence this revision.
4. When the matter came up for admission, I called upon the counsel to
produce the subject power of attorney said to have been executed by the son in
favour of his father. The power of attorney was produced. I noticed that the said
document did not empower the agent to present and prosecute petitions on behalf
of the principal. The learned counsel took time to produce the power of attorney
deed empowering the agent to file the petition and prosecute it.
5. Today, she has produced the power of attorney document executed at the
office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar in Document No.ADJ/AN/217/2024 dated
24.10.2024. A perusal of the power of attorney document shows that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner, who is residing at Pennsylvania, USA has authorised his father to
prosecute the petition before the Family Court. A reading of Clauses 2 to 4 shows
that the petitioner has specifically empowered his father to continue with the
proceedings. I also noticed that the power has been notarized by a Notary Public in
Pennsylvania, which is the jurisdiction in which the Civil Revision Petitioner is
residing. Therefore, it is clear that the father has been authorised to present the
petition on behalf of the son.
6. As per Section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Code of Civil
Procedure has been made applicable to the proceedings before the Family Court
The said provision deems a Family Court to be a Civil Court and has empowered the
Family Court to have all the powers that have been vested with the Civil Court. If
the Code of Civil Procedure applies to a proceedings under the Family Courts Act,
the petitioner will be entitled to move an application under Order III Rule 1 of CPC
and seek to be represented by a power agent. The power of attorney has been
notarized and therefore it becomes valid and authenticated for the production
before the Court in terms of Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. The issue whether a power of attorney can present a petition on behalf of
the principal has been settled by Mrs.Justice V.Bhavani Subbaroyan in Aishwarya
Sridharan -vs- Harihara Venkataraman Balasubramanian (CDJ 2023 MHC
6480). In addition, the Supreme Court in Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana [Writ Petition(s) (Criminal)
No(s).351/ 2023 dated 06.10.2023] has directed that all Courts should adopt
hybrid mode of adjudication. In fact, the Supreme Court in very clear terms, has
laid down that there is no necessity for a party to obtain permission from the Court
in order to appear before it utilizing the video conferencing mode. In the light of
the clear and categorical position of law laid down by the Supreme Court and by
Mrs.Justice V.Bhavani Subbaroyan of this Court, I am inclined to allow the revision.
8. The petition in O.P(SR) No.4493 of 2024 shall be re-presented along with
a petition under Order III Rule 1 of CPC with an affidavit of the petitioner Mr.Arun
Kumar Rajendra Kumar and a consent affidavit of the agent viz., Mr.S.Rajendra
Kumar. The affidavit filed under Order III Rule 1 of CPC by the principal must state
he is appointing his father as his power agent and the father must file an affidavit
stating that he consents to be the power agent on behalf of his son before the
Family Court. As appointment of power agent is a matter between the Court and the
party, the Court shall allow the application under Order III Rule 1 of CPC after
verification of the original Power of Attorney deed and the affidavits which have
been mentioned above. Since in Sarvesh Mathur's case it was clearly held that a
party need not file an application seeking for video conferencing, the Family Court
shall not insist upon an application from the petitioner to appear before it via video
conferencing.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. There shall be a direction
to the Principal Family Court, Chennai to receive OP (SR) No.4493 of 2024 together
with the power of attorney deed dated 18.10.2024 and the two affidavits I have
mentioned in the order and shall number the application, issue notice to the
respondent and proceed further.
30.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
KST
Note: Original Petition filed along with the CRP
shall be returned to the counsel for the
petitioner after obtaining the usual
endorsement.
To
The Principal Family Court
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST
30.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
