V S SUNDARA RAMAN Vs. V VAISHNAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed by the husband who is respondent in proceedings for divorce launched by the wife in O.P.No.4131 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

(2.) The main OP was filed by the respondent seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant/husband is admittedly working in the "United States of America". The husband filed an application seeking permission to appear through power agent in IA No.2672 of 2017. He had also executed a Power of Attorney before a Notary in United States of America. The family court passed an order dated 07.02018 in IA No.2672 of 2017 permitting the agent Mrs.Kamala Vidhyasankar, mother of the appellant herein, to represent him in the proceedings. The said order was made with the following qualification that "This petition is allowed in part. The petitioner is permitted to act on behalf of the respondent on all normal hearing and the respondent is directed to appear for the cross-examination of the petitioner and also filing his chief examination and also to be subjected to the cross-examination by himself".

(3.) After the IA No.2672 of 2017 was allowed as aforesaid. The wife/respondent herein filed two applications in IA Nos.1769 and 1770 of 2017 seeking payment of interim maintenance at Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum to herself and the female child, and for Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses. A counter affidavit was filed by the husband through his power agent on 26.04.2018. On 12.06.2018 the family court returned the counter affidavit filed by the power agent observing that the directions of the court made while allowing IA No.2672 of 2017 were not complied with. The family court has also pointed out that the power agent cannot file a counter affidavit and further directed the appellant husband to file a counter affidavit sworn to by himself and adjourned the matter to 11.07.2018. While doing so, the family court awarded interim maintenance at Rs. 40,000/- per moth. It is this order of the family court dated 12.06.2018 that is under challenged in these appeals.