Muthuraman vs Anuradha

C.S. Karnan, J.—The Petitioner has filed the above civil revision petition to set aside the order of return in HMOP SR No. 6613 of 2011, dated 21.04.2011 and to direct the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli to take the case filed by the Petitioner through the power of attorney on file.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Petitioner has married the Respondent on 10.11.2006 as per Hindu Customs and Rites and the marriage was an arranged marriage. The Respondent gave birth to a female child on 23.07.2009 through the Petitioner. There was strong difference of opinion between the Petitioner and Respondent during their marital life. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the above petition for divorce for dissolving the marriage solemnised between the Petitioner and Respondent on 10.11.2006 held at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. The petition was filed by the power agent, namely, R.Madhavan, who is the father of the Petitioner. The same was returned by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli stating that the petition is not maintainable.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner is residing and working in United States of America. Hence, the Petitioner is not in a position to attend the case proceeding before the concerned court. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner appointed his father as power agent. The leaned counsel further argued that the Petitioner had gone abroad for employment purpose. If the Petitioner comes to India to contest the case, the Petitioner will face irreparable loss like loss of pay, Airfare, Loss of leave, promotion prospects in his job etc., For filing the divorce petition, authenticated documents have been filed. If the power agent is permitted to proceed with the case, the interest of the Respondent will not be prejudiced. Further, the power agent is well aware of the case, since he is the father of the Petitioner. As such, the power agent is a fit person to proceed with the case. The learned Counsel further argued that if the case is tried before the Family Court, the Petitioner''s presence is not necessary, but as the case is to be tried before the Principal Subordinate Court, which is a civil forum, the Petitioner presence is not imperative.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that (1) the case is purely a family dispute arising due to differences in personal view between the husband and wife. (2) If both the concerned parties appear before the court, there is a possibility for change in their views and it may lead to a positive change as well. (3) Family Court Act is a Social Welfare Act. As such, both of them can express theirs views before the family mediation centre, which is an appropriate centre to effect a compromise. (4) Further, the learned Judge''s view is that the Petitioner''s presence is necessary, and this view of the learned Judge is based on his discretion and cannot be faulted with.

For the above mentioned aspects, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayer of the Petitioner. Therefore, the above Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. There is No. order as to costs.