CRP/1922/2026 of Mr. Anjaneyulu Kukatla, Vs WHOM SO EVER EONCERNED on 3 July 2026

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr. J. Pradeep Kiran, leamed counsel for the petitioners

2. The petitioners - husband and wife filed a petition under Section - l3B of the l:lindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. 'l-he said petition was fi led on 21 .04.2026 (in Iact it was filed on 18.05.2026) belore the II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Il Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Court at Medchal, and the said Court retumed the said OP on 18.05.2026 with the following objections:

-

KL.J CRP No 1922 o12026 "State how this petition is maintainable when the parents of the petitioners are available, how the GPA of relative and friends of the petitioners can be considered. Counsel lor petitioners is to be attested in list of docurnents in perrnission petition and undcr I{ule - 32 of Civ'il Rules of Practicc. Hence may be returned. Time (7) days. Sd/- II ADJ ''

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners resubnritted the case bundle with the following explanation: L As per O.3 R.ll of CPC. any person with valid (iPA is a recognized agent. Accordingly petition U,R.32 ol CRP has been tl led.

2. Complied. Any further objections may be called on bench. Hence, re-submitted. Sd/-08.06.26, counsel for petitioners,"

4. Even then, without satisfuing with the said explanation offered by leamed counsel for the petitioners, leamed trial Court posted the aforesaid FCOP to ll .07.2026 lor considering the objections. Therefore, the petitioners approached this (lour1.

5. Referring to Order - III, Rule - 2 of CPC, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners can appoint anybody -

KL,J CRP No 1922 0f2026 as their Attomeys to do a particular thing. In the present case to represent them in the aforesaid FCOp filed by them seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. There is no need of appointing the parents or relativcs o1'the parties

6. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the parents of petitioner No.l - husband are not more and the parents of petitioner No.2 are suffering from several old age ailments and are the residents of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, they have appointed Mr. Peduri Rajesh and Mr. Kalluri Anil Babu respectively, as their Atlorneys to represent them in the albresaid FCOp

7. It is also the specific contention of the petitioners that presently they are residing at USA and they have filed an application in the aforesaid FCOP, to waive the cooling period of six (06) months Therefore, leamed Family Court has to consider the said application also in accordance with law.

8. In 'ferance Alex v. Mary Sowmya Roser, wherein the Madras High Court dealt with the issue as to whether a power ol attorney can represent a party to matrimonial proceedings in Family CRP (NPD) No.436l of 2010, decided on 16.122010

-

Court. Referring to Order - III, Rule - I of CPC, Section - l0 of the Family Courts Act and the judgments rendered by it held as under: "It is well settled legal position that there is no Iegal impediment under the Family Courts Act. for a Power ol Attorncy to appear on behall of the Principal and the only legal embargo is that the recognised agent should not be a legal practitioner. An1- pcrson. not bein-e a lcgal practitioner. can be nominated as an agent under Order 3 Rule 2 CPC. to prosecute or defend the parties and until the Family Court passess any specific order, directing appearance of the party, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case."

g. ln Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan2, the Rajasthan tligh Court held as under "23. Apart liorn taking into considcration the ttrct and circumstances of the case, one thing is evident from the record itself that the plaintiff has miserably failed to produce any type of evidence to show that the intention of the party was otherwise. A general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behall of the party. but he cannot become a witness on behalf olthe party He can only appear in his or.','n capacitl. No one can K L,] CRP \o.1922 o12026 '. MnNulnHlo3gTl l98s

-a-

KL,J CRP No.l922 of2026 delegate the power to appear in witness-box on behalf of himsell. To appcar in a witness box is altogether a diff-erent act. A general power ol attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on be hall ol the plaintiif in the capacity of the plaintiff."

10. The aforesaid principle laid down by the Rajasthan High Court was by the Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v Indusind Bank Ltd.l

ll. Relening to the principle laid down by the Rajasthan High Court in Shambhu Dutt Shastri2, the Madras High Court in Sakunthala v. Anandarajan4, held as under: "7. Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorises a recoenised Dower ofattom ey holder to appear in a case and act on behalf of the original person. The said provision also contemplates that any person who has connection with trade or business or cornrncrcial transaction. can also appear and give evidence, if so expressly authorised." "9. The Supreme Court has also considered the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Shambhu (2005)2SCC2r7 MANU/TN/9206/2007

-

KL..I CRP No.l922 ot2026 Dutl Shastri v. State of Raios//ran. rvhcrein it 'vas held that the ri'ord "act" ttndcr Order Ill Rulc 2. CPC does not include the act of power of attorney holder to appear as witness on behalf of the party. It was further held that the power of attomey holder can appear only as a witness in his personal capacity and whatever knowledge he has about the case, he can state orally and he cannot appear as witness on behalf of the party in the capacitl of that part). It ri'as turthcr obscrved that even ilthe plaintifl is not able to appcar hefbrc the Court. the plaintitTis not left in the lurch.'Ihere is aprovision for appointment of commissioner for recording evidence under CPC."

12. In Harshada Bharat Deshmukh v. Bharat Appasaheb Deshmukhs, the Bombay High Court held as under: ''10. Section l3-B of the Hindu Marriaee Act do not contain anv orovisiorr abro at ln thc ow cr of' power of attornev holdcr undcr the Code ol tlivil Procedure, and thereibre, the procedure govenulc the oroceedines filed under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act would be eovemed by Order III as well as Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Judge, Family Court has not given any consideration to the provisions goveming the

t. 2o t8 SCc OnLine Bom. 6 t9

- procedure in relation to the proceedings ol mutual divorce filed under section l3-B ol the Hindu Marriage Act. It is imperative on the part of the Family Court to entertain the application for divorce by filing mutual consent presented to it on the ground that the parties have been residing separately for more than a year and they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agrccd to dissolvc the rrarriagc. lhe procedure Ibr dissolving the r-narriage is set out in sub-section (2) of section l3-B which mandates the Court on being satisfied that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition for mutual consent filed by the parties is true, to pass a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage, after affording an opportunity to the parties and after making such enquiry as it thinks f-rt. The Court has to thus asccrtain thc cxpcnscs ol' a marriage and irrevocable break down of the marriage with no possibility of any reconciliation.''

13. In the light ofthe aforesaid principle and the discussion and also considering the aforesaid facts, the present revision is disposed of directing the II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Il Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Family Court at Medchal, to consider thc alblcsaid explanation olfered by the Kl ..1 ( llP No 1922 o12026

-

KL,J CRPNo.l922 0f2026 petitioners and number the aforesaid FCOP if the same is otherwise in order, and dispose of it strictly in accordance with law. Learned Family Court is also directed to dispose of the interlocutory application fited by the petitioners seeking to waive cooling period of six (06) months period strictly in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional District and sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Family Court, Hyderabad'

2. One CC to Sri J. Pradeep Kiran, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD CoPies GNK/KA

HIGH COURT DATED: 0310712026 6E SrAr4,

( e Joo 10 JUL2U26 ,/ t

* l)rrqi:n-irl \

ORDER

CRP.No.1922 ol 2026 DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o.t \o\*\re