BIKANI SAVITHA AND ORS. 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 Mrs. Padmakiran Rao v. B. Venkataramana Rao : (1) 1995 (3) ALT 154 (D.B.) : 1995 (3) ALD 341 (D.B.), wherein this Court, in identical circumstances, interpreting the word "hearing" used under Section 13(B) of the Act, held as under:

(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, as per the judgment in the case of Mrs. Padmakiran Rao (supra), we are of the view that having regard to the affidavit filed by 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 for dissolution of the marriage, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 30.8.2014. Consequently, O.P. No. 123 of 2014 stands allowed dissolving the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 by way of mutual consent. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. No order as to costs.