KUNHI PURAYIL MUKUNDAN NAVEEN Vs. ANJALIKA DINESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. M. Joseph, J.-Petitioner has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking the following prayer:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 17-8-2008. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was totally at wreck and the cordial relationship with the respondent was impossible. Petitioner filed an application under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. Ext. P-1 is the unnumbered petition. Petitioner is employed abroad. He filed Ext. P-2 petition purporting to be under Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala praying that he may be permitted to appear through a Power of Attorney Holder who is his father. The said prayer has been rejected. Ext. P-3 is the order written on the reverse side of the petition. On the basis of Ext. P-3, the office has also returned the unnumbered original petition as is evident from the endorsement on the reverse side of Ext. P-1.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Abdul Salam v. Mariyumma(2). That was a case which arose under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act. THE husband filed a petition represented by his father, the power of attorney holder to set aside the ex parte order passed against him and to prosecute the petition through the power of attorney holder. THErein, the Court inter alia held as follows: