O R D E R
This revision is filed aggrieved by the order of the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai, dated 28.03.2022, in M.P.No.855 of 2021, in M.C.No.112 of 2019, in and by which, the petition filed by the petitioners being the wife and minor son who are the petitioners in the maintenance case to be represented by her father as power agent is rejected by the Family Court.
2.Upon notice, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent husband brought to the notice of this Court that in this case, the second petitioner, namely, Shahnaz, is now been selected and joined the Indian Administrative Service and is right now undergoing training for a period of two years. He would submit that the affidavit itself has not been filed on behalf of her. She was not present before the Family Court to present her matter. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly rejected the petition. He would further submit that the power agent on his own has filed an affidavit without the principal/second petitioner. Therefore, he would submit that the power agent himself cannot file a petition to recognize himself as the power agent. He has also got no right to file the present revision. On the strength of the said objections raised before this Court, this Court had
2/6
directed the second petitioner Shahnaz to file an affidavit before this Court.
3.Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners filed an affidavit before this Court indicating that the petition had been filed on her instructions and that she is in the training period. The said affidavit is taken on record. The learned counsel for the respondent also would submit that in this case, this Court should not permit the appearance of the parties through video conferencing and citing the judgment in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1278 of 2016 dated 09.10.2017 in Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venketesh submits that she has to be present in person for even presenting the application for recognizing the power agent.
4.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side. In view of the objections raised by the respondent, the predicament expressed by the second petitioner and in the interest of justice, this criminal revision is disposed of on the following terms:
(i) The order of the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai, dated 28.03.2022, in M.P.No.855 of 2021, in M.C.No.112 of 2019 is set aside;
3/6
(ii) The second petitioner, namely, Shahnaz, shall file an affidavit and also sign the petition and affidavit in the M.P.No.855 of 2021;
(iii) Physical presentation can be done by the power agent. For the said presentation of the petition, the Family Court can insist upon the second petitioner to appear through video conferencing and upon such insistence, the second petitioner shall appear through video conferencing. Once the petition is presented through video conferencing by the said second petitioner, it shall be deemed to be presented by the second petitioner principal herself and therefore, the petition can be taken up and considered on merits since the same is to represent her for the hearings, for which, the respondent cannot have any objections.
(iv) The objections raised by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venketesh is that until reconciliation stage, there is a duty cast upon the Family Court to attempt for reconciliation and video conferencing cannot be permitted at the threshold stage itself. Considering the said judgment, if required by the Family Court, for the purpose of reconciliation or counselling alone, the
4/6
second petitioner can appear before the Family Court upon specific directions by the Family Court for specific dates of hearing.
(v) After recognition of the power agent, the parties shall also file their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another (2021
2 SCC 324) and the Trial Court shall proceed to consider the same on merits in accordance with law and in any event, dispose of the maintenance case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
sli 11.08.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order
To
The IV Additional Family Court, Chennai.
5/6
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sli and
Crl.M.P.No.6019 of 2022
11.08.2022
6/6