S. Vaidyanathan, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, in H.M.O.P. No. 977 of 2011, dated 07.02.2013 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore, whereby the petition in I.A. No. 1151 of 2012 filed by the respondent/husband to reject the main HMOP 977 of 2011 filed on behalf of the appellant/wife by her Power of Attorney, one Kumarasamy for grant of divorce under Section 13(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e. on the ground of cruelty and desertion, came to be allowed. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

1.1. The appellant herein, has moved a petition in HMOP No. 977 of 2011 against her husband/respondent through her Power of Attorney, Kumarasamy for grant of divorce under Section 13(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, i.e. on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

1.2. The so-called Power of Attorney of the appellant is none other than her maternal grand father. It is stated in the petition filed by the Power of Attorney that the appellant is an employee of NUT as a Software Engineer and since she is working in abroad on deputation, she is not in a position to attend the Court in person. According to him, he is fully aware of the personal affairs of the respondent right from her birth including matrimonial life and as such, he filed the above said petition against the respondent for grant of divorce. He enunciated the facts and circumstances and the acts of the respondent which, according to him, amounts to cruelty and hence, he sought for divorce.

2. Aggrieved by the said petition filed by the Power of Attorney of the appellant/wife for grant of divorce, the respondent/husband has moved a petition in I.A. No. 1151 of 2012 before the Court below, praying to reject the main HMOP for the following reasons.

2.1. As the Power of Attorney has stated in his petition that he got direct knowledge about the incidents took place between the couple when they were living together and having intimacy within the four walls, no woman can share the happenings that took place between her and her husband within four walls, to a male person and the Power of Attorney is not empowered to make allegations against a person in a matrimonial case, when such allegations were not mentioned in the deed of power of attorney and no specific power for the purpose of making allegations had been executed by the appellant/wife. No allegations were made by the parents of the appellant/wife against the respondent. Therefore, the Power of Attorney exceeded his limits in making allegations against the respondent. The Power of Attorney does not have any role and he is prohibited from filing the case on behalf of the author of the power of attorney, i.e. appellant/wife and the issue is between the couple and the couple alone should prosecute it. With these averments, the respondent/husband prayed for rejection of the main HMOP as not maintainable.

3. This petition was resisted by the appellant through her Power of Attorney, by filing a counter affidavit, inter alia, it is stated that no provision of law for rejection of HMOP has been mentioned by the respondent. It is settled law that the Power of Attorney has right to file the petition for divorce as against the de facto victim, namely, the appellant/wife and as such, the petition filed for divorce is maintainable. He relied upon a decision reported in 2011 (1) MWN (Civil) 241, wherein, it is held that there is no legal impediment under the Family Courts Act for a Power of Attorney to appear on behalf of the principal and any person not being a legal practitioner, can be nominated as an agent under Order 3 Rule 1 CPC to prosecute or to defend the parties until the Family Court passes any order directing the appearance of the parties. It is also stated that the appellant/wife appeared before the Court below on several hearings including counselling even though she was working in abroad. The Power of Attorney is the maternal grant father of the