Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.The respondent executed a Deed of Special Power of Attorney in favour of his father on 26.04.2023 and the same was adjudicated at SRO, Mylapore as Document No.1350 of 2023. Thereafter, the mutual consent petition presented by the petitioner and respondent's father (POA) on 15.05.2023, along with it interim application, to appear through video- conferencing and to be represented by a power of attorney for the respondent filed. The respondent appeared before the Court through video-conferencing and the mutual consent petition was numbered as O.P.No.2148 of 2023, which is currently pending on the file of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Six months thereafter, the case posted for hearing on 15.11.2023, since the visa issue pertaining to the respondent could not be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.1994 & 89 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12451 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.1800 of 2024 resolved and he was unable to travel to India and not appeared before the Family Court and the case got adjourned to 29.01.2024. Thereafter for the same reason it was again adjourned to 23.02.2024. Finding that the mutual divorce petition getting stalled on technicality, the petitioner approached this Court in C.R.P.(PD) No.762 of 2024 and this Court by order dated 23.02.2024, permitted the respondent to appear through video conferencing. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had to return to USA otherwise she would lose her employment and livelihood, as she was staying in India for more than two months to complete the mutual consent formalities but the same could not be completed and hence, before leaving India, petitioner filed 4 interim applications in the Family Court registry on 29.02.2024, which are as follows:

6.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and respondent are living apart from each other since 01.08.2021, for more than https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.1994 & 89 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12451 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.1800 of 2024 two years and there is no chance of re-union. Despite best efforts, all mediation and reconciliation failed. She further submitted that the Principal Family Court, Chennai failed to consider that Rule 3 of Madras High Court video-conferencing in Courts, Rules, 2020 states that at the remote site, a coordinator is mandatory only when a witness or a person accused of an offence, i.e., in criminal case, is to be examined. The present case is a mutual consent divorce petition, where both parties seeks to appear through video- conferencing from their residence and also appointed power of attorney to be present physically before the Family Court to identify the petitioner and respondent and to provide all assistance in the Family Court proceedings. The Family Court failed to consider the difficulty faced by the parties and it is not feasible for the parties to appear from an Indian Consulate from USA, since they function according to USA time and there is 12 ½ hours time lag and the working time in USA will not be the working time for Indian Courts. The petitioner now unable to return to India and present herself physically before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.1994 & 89 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12451 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.1800 of 2024 the Family Court, since she had already stayed for more than two months to complete the mutual consent formalities in filing the case during January and February. Further, she stands to lose her employment if she is forced to make a trip to India personally. The respondent is also having some visa complications and he is unable to get visa stamping. If he is forced to come to India, he might not be allowed to re-enter USA and he will lose his job in the USA as well. For this reason, both the petitioner and respondent are unable to return to India and present physically before the Family Court. They are ready to appear through video-conferencing and their power of attorneys, mother of the petitioner and father of the respondent shall appear in person physically before the Family Court. Further before this Court both petitioner and respondent appeared through virtual mode, reiterated their inclination to get divorce by mutual consent, they also provided the copy of the petition and the documents annexed to the petition and proof affidavit. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.1994 & 89 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12451 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.1800 of 2024

16.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Principal Family court is taking technical objections and not entertaining the plea and prayer of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court judgments and this Court orders in similar cases produced but not considered. The consistent view of the Apex Court and this Court is to encourage video conferencing facility and hearings, wherever it is difficult for the parties to appear in person, might be due to various reasons. He further submitted that petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent is filed after all steps to reconcile the difference between spouses failed. The petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act is by mutual consent, which are not seriously contested. The presentation of the petition by petitioner and respondent in person is not mandatory, further presentation of divorce petition by mutual https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.1994 & 89 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12451 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.1800 of 2024 consent can be filed through Power of Attorneys. The insistence by the Family Court that petitioner and respondent to appear from Indian Embassy and in presence of Embassy officials is not proper, considering the time lag of 12 ½ hours and unworkable conditions.

30.In the case of petitions filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent, the Court is to see whether they have got separated, there is no chance for reunion, whether mutual consent is not obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. These can be verified from the petition filed and enquiring the petitioners, who appear through virtual mode. The role of the Court in dealing with 13-B petition is limited. Hence, this Court finds the technical objections raised by the Principal Family Court, Chennai and not entertaining the petition and plea of the petitioners not proper, unreasonable and unsustainable. Hence, the objections are set aside.