SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 826

S.PALANIVELU
Nathiya Faru – Appellant
Versus
Rojan Roux – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:D. Geetha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Anbarasan, Advocate.

Judgment

The petitioner is mother of one Roux Pauline who is wife of the respondent. Both of them have got three children. Their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2000. After the marriage, both the spouses moved to France for eking out the likelihood. All the three children were born in France and their names have been entered in the Passport of the respondent and without the help and assistance of the respondent, the children could not travel out of France.

2. Due to certain misunderstandings, the respondent filed M.O.P.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry for dissolution of marriage and the same is pending. Since the children are in France, their mother has necessarily to be in France itself. She could not come over to Pondicherry for every hearing of the case and hence her mother has come forward with a petition for permission to represent on behalf of her daughter Roux Pauline as Power Agent and to defend the case.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, he has stated inter alia that there is no necessity for grant of permission to the petitioner to defend her daughter, since she is able to come over to Pondicherry to defend the case.

4. After















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top