HARSHADA BHARAT DESHMUKH Vs. BHARAT APPASAHEB DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No.9, Pune on 1st January 2018 thereby rejecting the prayer made by petitioner no.2 before the Court to file a petition, on mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act through the Power of Attorney holder.

(2.) It is on this petition the Principal Judge, Family Court passed the order which reads below:

(3.) The present petition assails the above mentioned order of the Judge, Family Court. Mr. Samir Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition would submit that the Family Court has erred in refusing the registration of the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the petitioner no.2 is not present before the Court at the time of filing of present petition. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is employed in United States of America and she is not in a position to attend the Court proceedings and she was not able to remain present at the time of filing of the petition due to employment rules and regulations prevailing in the United States of America and according to the learned counsel, this fact has been ignored by the Judge, Family Court. The learned counsel would also submit that the refusal of registration of the petition merely on the ground that the petition was presented and/or sought to be filed by the petitioner's Power of Attorney holder in itself does not empower the learned Judge to reject the petition and therefore, he would submit that the said order is perse illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mukesh Narayan Shinde Vs. Palak Mukesh Shinde, 2012 3 AllMR 521, to submit that it is permissible for the Family Court in the light of technological development to arrange for Ecounselling and Everification by video conference. He would also rely upon the judgment in the case of NavdeepKaur Vs. Mahinder Singh Ahluwalia (Punjab & Haryana High Court),2010 4 AllMR(Jou) 49, to submit that Personal appearance of the parties at the time of presentation of petition for divorce by mutual consent is not mandatory and the parties may be represented through duly constituted attorney. However, in such a case, the Court will have to be cautious and vigilant in recording its satisfaction about consent. Another authority on which the learned counsel has placed reliance is of the Lucknow bench in the case of Kanwalijeet Sachdev Vs. State of U.P & anr, 2016 6 AllLJ 589, which lays down a similar position of law and deal with a situation, where one of the parties before the Court seeking divorce by mutual consent has been residing abroad and when both the parties with consent have arrived at settlement agreement, that has been brought to the notice of the Court.