S B TIRUMAL RAJ Vs. LAKSHMI PRASANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 31.12.2011, in O.P.No. 619 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad.Even though notice was served on the respondent and acknowledgement in proof thereof is filed by the petitioner's counsel along with memo, dated 09.03.2012, no one entered appearance for the respondent.

(2.) The short issue that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the presence of the petitioner is necessary for grant of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner is represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, as he is presently residing in UK. He along with the respondent, who is his wife, presented an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act, on 21.04.2011. After expiry of the statutory minimum period of six months, the case was posted on 31.12.2011. On the said date, the respondent and the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner were present. The affidavit of the petitioner herein was also filed. However, the lower Court has adjourned the case to 21.01.2012 with the direction to the petitioner to attend the Court on the said date. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction for personal presence of the petitioner, he filed the present civil revision petition.

(3.) At the hearing, Sri J.A. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the provisions of Section 13B of the Act do not envisage personal presence of the parties for granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Padmakiran Rao v. B. Venkataramana Rao, 1995 3 ALD 341 (DB), wherein this Court considered the words "after hearing the parties" in sub-section (2) of Section 13B of the Act and held as under: