PAVITHRA Vs. RAHUL RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the respondent in HMOP No. 193 of 2002 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore. The respondent/husband has filed the above HMOP under S. 13 (1) (la) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of the marriage solemnised on 17-5-2000.

(2.) Due to misunderstanding, the petitioner herein stayed with her parents, later she left India to pursue her studies in United States of America. In the meanwhile, she has executed a registered power of attorney dated 14-12-2001 in favour of her father, who is representing this case. The respondent/husband has filed HMOP after she has left India. The Court below issued summons to the petitioner herein directing her to appear before the Court on 20-5-2002, which was received by her mother. On 20-5-2002, the petitioner's father filed an application under Order III Rule 2 and Section 151 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to defend the HMOP No. 193 of 2002 on behalf of the petitioner. The said application was returned by the Court below and the petitioner herein was set ex parte on 20-5-2002 Itself. The petitioner's father has represented the above petition on 21-5-2002 with an endorsement that the petitioner has executed a power bf attorney in his favour and in virtue of the same the application has been filed. Again, the said application was returned by the family court relying upon the unreported judgment of this Court in a Transfer CMP that the presence of the parties on each date of hearing is mandatory. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

(3.) The point for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner can take advantage of Order III. Rule 1 or 2 of CPC.