The legal point established is the permissibility of appointing a power of attorney holder and the appellant's appearance through video conference in family court proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Family Courts Act, 1984.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant/wife.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.2022, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, in Case No.3039 of 2022, (Smt. Monica Saravanan versus R. Saravanan), on an Application (8-Ga) filed by the appellant, wherein, the prayer of the appellant, appointing her father, to do pairvi in the case through special power of attorney, as appellant would not be available in the country, as she intents to proceed to Canada to pursue her carrier. Application came to be rejected by the impugned order, wherein, it is noted by the learned Trial Court that the application under Order 3 Rule 2 CPC has not been instituted through an agent or power of attorney holder. It is further noted that the appellant-plaintiff is present in the Court and submits that for further proceedings she has appointed her father through special power of attorney to do pairvi in the matter. The application came to be rejected, as in the opinion of the Court, the power of attorney has not been filed in the representative capacity.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Court below committed an error in rejecting the Application (8-Ga), the suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was filed by the appellant, and in order to pursue her carrier she has to proceed abroad, therefore, the appellant was justified to appoint a confidant through special power of attorney to do parivi. Further, an undertaking was also given that she would be bound by the outcome of the judicial proceedings. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that her oral evidence, if required, or directed by the Court, the appellant is prepared to join the court proceedings through video conference which is permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as, the Evidence Act.

4. Attention of the Court has also be drawn to Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which provides the procedure applicable to the Family Courts, which reads as under:-

“10. Procedure generally.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings [other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such court.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other.”

5. Further Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, mandates that proceedings to be held in camera, which reads as under:-

“11. Proceedings to be held in camera.—In every suit or proceedings to which this Act applies, the proceedings may be held in camera if the Family Court so desires and shall be so held if either party so desires.”

6. Reliance have been placed upon the judgments passed by Supreme Court in S. Ramachandra Rao versus S. Nagabhushana Rao & Others (AIR 2022 SC 517) Paragraph 14 and Manju Devi versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2019) 0 Supreme (SC) 462.

7. Further, reliance have also been placed upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Haseen Siddiqui @ Jahangir versus State of U.P. and others, (2013) 0 Supreme (All) 2700. Full Bench judgment rendered in Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi versus Hasan Raza Khan & others, (AIR 2016 All 52).

8. The term power of attorney refers