AISHWARYA SRIDHAR Vs. HARIHARA VENKATARAMAN BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to the Learned Presiding Officer, Principal Family Court, Chennai, to receive the petitioner's and respondent's joined petition for dissolution of their marriage under Sec. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 that was solemnized on 10/7/2016 under mutual consent and for implementing the terms of compromise on 13/12/2022 and ascertain the consent of the parties hereto virtually, with the parties being identified by respective counsel and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dispensing with the 6 months waiver period.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 10/7/2016 at Virugambakam, Chennai - 600 091. Due to misunderstanding between them, they got separated in the year 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.5026 of 2022 for restitution of conjugal rights, which petition was numbered after the direction of this Court in C.R.P.No.2553 of 2021. The respondent filed a petition for divorce after the HMOP filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights, but it was numbered earlier and therefore, it was assigned the number H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2019. The petitioner and respondent thereafter had arrived at a compromise on 13/12/2022. In accordance with the terms of the compromise, they withdrew the respective petitions before the Family Court namely H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2019 and H.M.O.P.No.5026 of 2022 through their above said power of attorneys respectively. Thereafter, on 16/6/2023, the power of attorney of the respondent namely his father and the power of attorney of the petitioner namely her mother appeared before the Family Court and filed an application for divorce by mutual consent under Sec. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the Learned Presiding Officer, Family Court has stated that at least one of the parties should be present while the other can appear on virtual mode. Since the petitioner is residing in USA, she is constrained to move this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, both the petitioner and respondent are residing in USA. If they travelled to India to present the petition for divorce by mutual consent, they may lose their job. He further submitted that, after 5 years of separation, due to intervention of elders, the parties have resolved the issue and entered into a memorandum of compromise and therefore, it is necessary that the consent petition be received through the respective power of attorneys of the parties and consent of the parties be recorded on the virtual mode.