BIKANI SAVITHA Vs. ALL CONCERNED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.08.2014 in O.P. No. 123 of 2014 passed by the Additional Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed by them under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity "the Act") for dissolution of their marriage dated 13.3.2009 by way of mutual consent. Appellant No. 1/Petitioner No. 1, represented through her mother, who is the Special Power of Attorney Holder, and appellant No. 2/petitioner No. 2, who is the husband of petitioner No. 1, have filed O.P. No. 123 of 2014 before the Court below under Section 13(B) of the Act seeking dissolution of the marriage by way of mutual consent. At the first instance, an affidavit of petitioner No. 1 is filed, which is sworn in London and attested by a Notary, confirming the contents of the petition in O.P. No. 123 of 2014 being filed before the Court below. The Court below, through the impugned order dated 30.8.2014 dismissed the said petition on the ground that petitioner No. 1/wife did not attend the Court, either on the date of filing or on the date of disposal of the petition, and only the 2nd petitioner-husband has attended the Court and in the absence of petitioner No. 1 on the date of filing and also on the date of disposal of the petition, the petition is dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment of this Court in Padmakiran Rao v. B. Venkataramana Rao, 1995 3 ALT 154 , wherein this Court, in identical circumstances, interpreting the word "hearing" used under Section 13(B) of the Act, held as under:

(3.) In the instant case, when the matter has come up on the last occasion, the Special Power of Attorney holder, who is the mother of petitioner No. 1, and petitioner No. 2 were asked to be present in person. Today, they are present in person before this Court. The Special Power of Attorney Holder, who is the mother of petitioner No. 1 has stated that her daughter is staying in London and requested for dissolution of the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 in view of the affidavit filed by her daughter/petitioner No. 1, which is sworn in London and attested by a Notary, confirming the contents of the petition in O.P. No. 123 of 2014, requested to allow the appeal by dissolving the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2.