Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Sudheer.
For the Respondent: D. Sajeev.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case involves the question of whether a power of attorney holder is entitled to present a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (!) (!) .

2. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 29/10/2001. The appellant filed a petition for divorce on grounds of illicit relationship and cruelty, which was later dismissed as not pressed (!) .

3. The appellant executed a power of attorney appointing her father to prosecute the case before the Family Court (!) .

4. Subsequently, a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed, with the appellant represented through her power of attorney and the respondent appearing in person. The Family Court passed a decree dissolving the marriage based on statements recorded from the appellant’s father (power of attorney holder) and the respondent (!) .

5. The Family Court's decision was based on the statements indicating that the marriage was irretrievably broken, with no chance of reconciliation, and that all financial matters had been settled (!) .

6. The appellant contended that she did not give her consent for the divorce and argued procedural requirements were not satisfied, leading to the appeal (!) .

7. The legal provisions specify that a petition for divorce by mutual consent must be presented by both parties themselves, and the Court's satisfaction depends on evidence that the parties have been living separately for at least one year and have mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage (!) (!) (!) .

8. Evidence in such cases must be based on personal knowledge of the parties, and evidence tendered through a power of attorney holder is generally not permissible for matters requiring personal knowledge, such as mutual consent and emotional incompatibility (!) .

9. The Court emphasized that the petition must be filed by the parties themselves, and if during the period after filing, the parties meet and resume cohabitation, the Court may lack jurisdiction to grant the divorce. The Court must be satisfied that the essential conditions for mutual consent are maintained at the time of the petition and during the inquiry (!) .

10. The Court found that the Family Court's approach was erroneous because the evidence presented through the power of attorney was not sufficient to establish mutual consent, especially given the appellant’s own statement about meeting the respondent during the proceedings (!) .

11. As a result, the judgment of the Family Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, reaffirming that the proper procedure requires the parties themselves to present and substantiate the petition for divorce by mutual consent (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.