IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Family Courts justified in seeking assistance of any practicing lawyer to provide necessary skype facility in any particular case.
(2) Family Courts entitled to ascertain views of parties, for that purpose adjourning case by reasonable period not to be frowned upon.

Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.—This revision has been preferred by the 2nd petitioner in Family Court O.P.No.1547 of 2014, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L. B.Nagar. The sole respondent herein is the 1st petitioner in the above O.P.

2. The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent is his wife. Both of them have filed the aforesaid O.P.No.1547 of 2014 under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of their marriage performed on 22.8.2010 by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

3. The case of the petitioners in the OPwas that they are both Hindus by religion and faith and got married on 22.8.2010 at Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, as per Hindu rites and customs and they initially lived at Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, and later on, in Australia where the 2nd petitioner was employed and that certain differences have cropped up between them, which could not be reconciled in spite of the best efforts made by the petitioners themselves, friends, well-wishers and elders of the families of both the petitioners. The petitioners, all due to incompatibility between them had realized that their marriage has broken down irretrievably and hence, both of them have taken a decision and agreed to have the marriage dissolved by mutual consent. Hence, they filed the OP before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The 1st petitioner in the O.P., who is the respondent herein, has been attending to the proceedings by appearing before the Family Court. However, the father of the 2nd petitioner, who holds the General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the 2nd petitioner/husband in the O.P., filed an interlocutory application bearing SR.No.2216 of 2015 on 9.4.2015 before the Family court to receive the chief affidavit of PW.2/petitioner No.2, duly dispensing with the personal appearance of the 2nd petitioner before the Family Court. The 2nd petitioner has sworn to a detailed affidavit and got it notarized by a notary public of South Melbourne, Australia. That interlocutory application has been returned with a cryptic order dated 9.4.2015, which reads as under:

“Petition is returned as not maintainable.”

5. It is against this order the present revision is filed.

6. Since no reasons are assigned why the learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petition is not maintainable, the reasons are solicited. The learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in her communication dated 28.4.2015 addressed to the Registry has set out that the OP was moved on 8.10.2014 and it was posted to 9.4.2015 for appearance of both parties after six months and that since the 1st petitioner was present and the 2nd petitioner was not present, the matter was posted to 22.4.2015 and that on 22.4.2015, the counsel for the 2nd petitioner filed a chief affidavit of PW.2, which was notarized in Australia and on that day neither the GPA Holder of the 2nd petitioner nor the 2nd petitioner was present and hence, the same is returned.

7. Apparently, since the Court could not enquire from the parties about their subsisting consent for granting divorce by mutual consent, the I.A. moved by the 2nd petitioner appears to have been returned on 9.4.2015, but not on 22.4.2015. It would have been better for the learned Judge to have spelt out the reasons for her conclusion.

8. The respondent/wife herein, who is the 1st petitioner in O.P., was present before this Court. She appears to be fairly very clear that the marriage between her and the 2nd petitioner in the OP is required to be dissolved. She does not appear to be having any doubts in that regard. I have also no doubt in my mind that the respondent herein has any second thoughts about dissolution of her marriage with the 2nd petitioner in the OP She was also clear that there is no necessity to cross-examine the 2nd petitioner in the OP with regard to the contents of the affidavit sought to be filed by him, as the contents are virtually the same as are narrated in the