SMT. MANGALA SURYADEVARA Vs. DR. SRINIVASA REDDY APPAKONDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 15.12.2006 at Tirupathi. Thereafter they were residing at United States of America as the respondent is a practicing Cardiologist at that place. Due to differences in their married life, the parties have initiated several legal proceedings against each other. The respondent accordingly has secured a decree of dissolution dated 15.07.2009 from the Fayette Family Court, V Division, Common Wealth of Kentucky, 22nd Judicial Circuit, USA. The petitioner however would contend that such decree is not valid. It is in that view the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.64/2014 before the Prl. Judge Family Court, Bengaluru on 13.03.2014 seeking for a judgment and decree in her favour declaring that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent is deemed to be continuing and that they continue to remain as husband and wife. The suit summons has been served on the defendant viz., the respondent herein.

(2.) In the said suit, the father of the respondent Sri. A. Ramasubba Reddy is representing the respondent as his General Power of Attorney holder ('GPA' for short). In that direction, the application in IA-VI is filed under Order 3, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code to permit the defendant to contest the suit through the GPA holder. The petitioner herein had filed an application in IA-IV seeking initiation and reference of the proceedings against the defendant under Sec. 17(2)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 7(2)(b) of the Family Courts Act to take necessary action against the GPA holder. The Family Court after taking into consideration the scope of Order 3, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner in IA-IV and allowed the application filed by the respondent in IA-VI. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court. The scope of consideration in these petitions is with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the leave granted by the Family Court to the respondent to be represented by his GPA holder.

(3.) Heard Sri. Ravi B. Naik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C. V. Nagesh, learned senior counsel for the respondent and perused the petition papers.