Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary
C.R. No. 714 of 2017
Amrinder Singh
v.
Seerat Kaur
{Decided on 02/05/2017}
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate.
Divorce--By Mutual Consent--It is not mandatory for the parties to appear in person in court at the time of filing of petition and also at the time of second motion--The attorney can be authorised to appear.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13-B--Divorce--By Mutual Consent--Power of Attorney holder--It is not mandatory for the parties to appear in person in court at the time of filing of petition for divorce by way of mutual consent and also at the time of second motion--The attorney can be authorised to appear--In case the party is represented through power of attorney who is none else but a close relative, the genuineness of the statements, pleas and proceedings cannot be doubted--It is not that the satisfaction can only be recorded when the parties are present in person--There can be a case where even in the presence of the parties, the Court may not feel satisfied about their bona fides or consent.
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13-B--Divorce--By Mutual Consent--Power of Attorney holder--In present case, money has already been paid to the respondent-wife--The presence of the petitioner husband is not mandatory in the proceedings for divorce by way of mutual consent--In the present case, the first motion statement on behalf of petitioner-husband has already been recorded and it is only at the stage of recording of second motion statement, the presence of petitioner-husband has been sought by the trial Court without recording any reason or satisfaction of the Court--Impugned order of trial court set aside.
Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside impugned order dated 26.10.2016 passed by District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad to the extent that the petitioner has been directed to be present in person at the time of recording second motion statement in mutual consent divorce petition No. HMA 1312/27.10.2016 filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and for granting exemption from personal appearance and to allow Special Power of Attorney holder, namely, Sh. Bhagwan Singh to appear, act and make statement on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition are that petitioner got married to respondent on 10.2.2013 according to Sikh rites and rituals. They remained together for sometime but thereafter they could not pull together in their married life. FIR No. 129 dated 7.6.2014 was registered at Police Station Faridabad NIT against the petitioner and his parents. Subsequently, the dispute between the parties was amicably settled vide compromise deed dated 16.5.2016 with the intervention of the respectables of the Society and family members, wherein, it was mutually agreed that the respondent-wife will not insist the petitioner-husband to appear before the Court for making statement as the petitioner was residing in Australia and was unable to come to India. This condition was mentioned in para No. 7 of the compromise deed. Accordingly, the petitioner gave power of attorney to his uncle, namely, Bhagwan Singh. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner husband approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. No. M-26891 of 2016 for quashing of the FIR, which was allowed vide order dated 15.11.2016. Thereafter, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent was filed by the petitioner-husband through his uncle, namely, Sh. Bhagwan Singh, being Special Power of Attorney holder. The statements of both the parties were recorded on 26.10.2016 but the trial Court directed the Special Power of Attorney holder to produce husband-petitioner in person at the time of recording of second motion statement on 2.5.2017. The petitioner-husband filed the present petition for setting aside impugned order dated 26.10.2016 partly, vide which, the petitioner was directed to remain present for making second motion statement in the divorce petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter has already been compromised between the parties and respondent-wife has no objection in case the second motion statement on behalf of the petitioner husband is recorded through his attorney. The amount settled in the compromise has already been paid to the respondent-wife still the petitioner has been asked to appear in person for recording of the statement of the second motion, whereas, statement of first motion has already been recorded. Learned counsel further contends that the petition has also been filed through Power of Attorney and the statement made by the Attorney is equally good as he has been authorized by the petitioner-husband to make statement on his behalf. Respondent-wife has also no objection in recording the statement of attorney holder.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed filing of the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and also recording of the first motion statement. He has also not disputed the factum of grant of amount as per compromise arrived at between the parties. It is also not disputed that FIR No. 129 dated 7.6.2014 registered under Section 406,498-A IPC at Police Station Faridabad NIT has already been quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order and other documents available on
