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 hearing both parties, learned Family Court Judge, Pondicherry turned down the request of the petitioner, by observing that in the Family Courts, the appearance of the parties are inevitable, in view of the duty cast upon the Family Court to make every endeavour to settle the matter by doing counselling work.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly contend that the Court below has carried out misreading that the names of the children have been entered into the mothers passport, which is a wrong conclusion. By an earlier order, the Family Court in I.A.No.852 of 2008 dated 10. 2008, directed the respondent to produce xerox copy of his passport for perusal, which shows that in the passport of the respondent the names of three children have been entered besides their photographs.

6. It is her further contention that even though the provisions of the Family Courts Act prohibit appearance of legal practitioner on behalf of a party before the Family Court, still any person, not having legal profession, may be permitted to represent on behalf of a party in special circumstances. It is also urged that for the effective hearing of the case, when the presence of a party before this Court is indispensable, the Court may direct him to be present before the Court and it is the duty of the party to make himself to appear before the Court as and when it required.

7. Arguing on the other side of the coin, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Court below either factually or legally, since no Power of Attorney can appear on behalf of his principal as witness to bring the facts before the Court which are expected to be within the personal knowledge of the principal. It is his further contention that there is no impediment for the wife to appear before the Court for hearings as observed by the Court below and that the presence of the parties themselves before the Court in the matrimonial cases would be available for amicable settlement of the matter.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon two decisions of this Court. In 2003 (1) MLJ 182 [Pavithra rep. By P.O.A S. Rajkumar Kalingarayar v. Rahul Raj], this Court, while discussing this subject in extenso, has observed that there is no embargo for a person interested to defend a party in the matrimonial case before the Family Court and the appearance of the party can arise only at the time of particular stage of the case. The operative portion of the judgment goes thus:

"14. O.3, Rule 1 of C.P.C. Empowers a party in a suit or proceedings to be represented by a pleader, but so far as the proceedings in the Family Courts are concerned, the right of representation by the pleader does not exist