( 1 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The respondent filed petition for divorce being H. M. Petition No. 203/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, vadodara under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). It appears that in respect to the summons issued by the Civil Court at vadodara, the petitioner filed application for the preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction being application Ex. 10 praying to decide the preliminary issue as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition filed by the applicant therein. The respondent hrein who was the applicant in the petition filed a reply and ultimately the learned Judge trying the petition dismissed the application of the petitioner herein as per the order dated 24. 4. 2002 and the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition challenging the said order passed by the learned civil Judge. It also appears that the petitioner after the order passed by the learned Judge on 24. 4. 2002 had approached the Apex Court by preferring Transfer Petition no. 710/2002 and the said petition has been dismissed by the Apex Court as per the order dated 3. 2. 2004 and mr. Dave, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of hearing has placed on record the copy of the order passed by the Apex Court for dismissal of the transfer petition. The said order reads as under:"heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The transfer petition is dismissed. "it also appears that after the dismissal of the transfer petition the petitioner has appraoched this court by preferring this petition.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaushik, father of Respondent, who has produced the Power-of-Attorney on behalf of respondent to remain present in the Court proceedings. In normal circumstances, any citizen or party to the proceedings is not allowed to represent as party-in-person by submitting the Power-of-Attorney unless one is an Advocate of the court or in other circumstances, the party himself can appear as party-in-person, but the family members of the party to the proceedings cannot be permitted to represent the case in the Court proceedings. However, Mr. Kaushik, father of respondent, submitted that his son is not in a position to remain present since, as per Mr. Kaushik, the life of his son is in danger and the father of the respondent, Jagdish P. Kaushik also submitted that he was permitted to represent the case before the Apex Court on behalf of his son even in the transfer proceedings and, therefore, with a view to see that the respondent may not be required to bear the cost of engaging Advocate and as the father wanted to represent the case on behalf of his son, who is the respondent in this petition, I have allowed Mr. Kaushik, father of the respondent to represent the case of the respondent in this proceedings in the interest of justice.

( 3 ) MR. DAVE, learned Counsel for the ptitioner, submitted that the petitioner and the respondent, after their marriage have not, at any point of time, resided at vadodara and the marriage was solemnised at Ghaziabad and after the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent were staying at Ghaziabad as wife and husband and thereafter it is the case of the petitioner that she was physically beaten and the injury was caused and, therefore, there was dispute for which crminal complaint has also been filed and the respondent and the family members of the respondent were reported as shifted to vadodara. Mr. Dave also submitted that the father and mother of the respondent are released on bail, but the respondent who is husband is still absonding. He submitted that there is correspondence between the advocate by way of notice, which is a part of the record in the proceedings of divorce petition which goes to show that the wife and the husband have not resided at