Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Background:

1. Savithri has a son and a daughter, Satheesh Kumar and Latha Kumari, respectively. Claiming maintenance from her son, she has filed an unnumbered M.C. before the Family Court, Nedumangad. Savithri's daughter represents her.

2. But the registry noted certain defects in the Petition (Ext. P1) and returned it on 18.08.2016, perhaps, for the party to cure the defects. The defects the registry noted are these: (1) The vakalathnama (Ext. P2) was not attested by an advocate"; (2) M.C., filed by the petitioner's daughter, has no power of attorney attached.

3. Sri N. Satheesh Kumar, Savithri's counsel, has agreed to cure the second defect. As to the first defect, he took a plea that he filed the vakalathnama in a proper form satisfying all the legal formalities under the Rule 27 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1971.

4. But the Family Court's registry has insisted, according to the petitioner, that the vakalathnama does not conform to the statutory stipulations. The registry's stand on the vakalathnama is now challenged. When these simple facts were narrated, we found nothing amiss; it must be one of the numerous run-of-the-mill cases. But it is