No party to the Family Court can seek dispensation of personal appearance once for all.

Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai dated 08.11.2002 made in I.A.No.2388 of 2002 in O.P.No.126 of 1999, dispensing with the presence of the respondent herein till the final disposal of O.P.No.126 of 1999, the petitioner - wife has filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard, Mr. R. Sundarrajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Thanikachalam, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The grievance of the petitioner - wife is that the Family Court has passed an order immediately on receipt of the petition from her husband even without ordering notice. The husband had filed O.P.No.126 of 1999, for divorce against the petitioner herein - wife on the ground of cruelty. It is stated that the husband examined himself as P.W.1 and while his cross examination was in progress, he filed a petition in I.A.No.2388 of 2002, stating that he is going abroad, therefore his presence may be dispensed with. By the impugned order, the Family Court allowed his application and dispensed with his personal appearance. In the meanwhile, the petitioner - wife has filed an application to dismiss the main O.P., for non prosecution, since her husband is not attending the Court. She also filed another application for maintenance of her minor daughter. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the Family Court has not taken up those applications. As per the Family Courts Act and Rules made thereunder, the personal appearance of the parties cannot be dispensed with, particularly at the time of enquiry.

4. One N. Subramanian, registered Power of Attorney of the respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that from November, 1999, his son had been pressing for early disposal of the case, since he is expecting orders of Foreign Assignment through proper channel. His son was examined from 08.03.2002 to 11.11.2002. P.Ws.2 and 3 were also examined and evidence on the side of his son was closed. The revision petitioner itself was examined in chief on 03.12.2002, 09.12.2002 and 11.12.2002. Since his son got the posting at Saudi Arabia, his son informed the Court and filed a petition in I.A.No.2388 of 2002 in O.P.No.126 of 1999. After hearing the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed the petition on 08.11.2002. The examination, cross examination, re-examination and further examination in chief, cross examination of his son was completed as early as on 11.11.2002. He left India after 14.11.2002. After examination of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner informed the Court that P.W.1 is going to be recalled for further cross examination. So, the oblique motive of the petitioner can be ascertained from her own conduct. Now, the petitioner has come forward with this revision. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriages Act, claiming a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards permanent alimony and for maintenance of a female child. His son filed a counter affidavit opposing the petition. From 08.11.2001, his son has been making sincere attempts to get the matter disposed of as early as possible. It is only due to the conduct of the revision petitioner, the main O.P. could not be disposed of, hence the revision petitioner is not entitled to take advantage of her own wrongful conduct in delaying the matter to find fault with the orders of the Family Court. The delay is due to her own making.

5. The only point for consideration in this revision is, whether the Family Court is justified in ordering I.A.No.2388 of 2002 in O.P.No.126 of 1999, dispensing with the presence of the husband till the final disposal of O.P.No.126 of 1999?

6. Mr. R. Sundarrajan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the light of the procedure contemplated under the Family Courts Act and Rules, 1984, the presence of both parties cannot be dispensed with, accordingly, the impugned order dispensing with the presence of the husba