IMPORTANT POINT POINT
Any person, not being a legal practitioner, can be nominated as an agent under Order III, Rule 2 of CPC to prosecute or defend parties before Family Court.

S. Manikumar, J. —The issue involved in this Civil Revision Petition is whether a power of attorney can represent a party to matrimonial proceedings in family Court.

2. Short facts leading to the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

After marriage, the petitioner went to United Kingdom for his employment, leaving the respondent-wife, at his parental house at Utchakkada. Subsequently, the respondent also joined him on 1.3.2009 and that they were leading a happy life. On the request of respondent’s father to meet her family members, she left United Kingdom on 14.5.2009 and reached Chennai. Due to the ill-advice of her father, complaints were lodged against the petitioner under various non-bailable offences, with a motive to prevent him to come down to Chennai and meet her. Without any reasonable cause, she had withdrawn from her conjugal duties and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition before the Family Court at Trivandrum, Kerala for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights, appointing Mr. Manu, as his lawful power of attorney agent. The said case is pending.

3. In the mean while, the respondent filed a petition for Divorce in I.D.O.P.No.3447 of 2009. Even without serving any notice to the petitioner, the respondent by way of Civil. Revision Petition, has got an order, as ‘notice sufficient’ and on that basis, an ex parte order was passed against him on 1.11.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that when he has filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights in Case No.981 of 2010 before the Family Court at Trivandram, through his Power Agent, Mr. Manu, to appear and represent on his behalf in the matrimonial case filed against him by the respondent wife in I.D.O.P.No.3447 of 2009 before the 2nd Additional Family Court, Chennai and the said agent is also empowered to file petitions or applications before the Family Courts, Metropolitan Magistrate Courts and other Civil Courts, on his behalf or in any proceedings, Civil or Criminal or Matrimonial, arising out of the said case, the ex parte order was invalid.

4. However, explaining the inability to appear in person, as he is presently working in a foreign country, the petitioner has filed an application to set aside the above said ex parte order, dated 1.11.2010 in I.D.O.P.No.3447 of 2009 under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, through his power agent. In addition to the above, he has also taken out an application under Order 3, Rule 1 CPC to grant permission to Mr. Manu, to represent in the above I.D.O.P., on his behalf. The learned 2nd Additional Family Court Judge, by an order, dated 23.11.2010, has returned the application with an endorsement as follows:

“The application is filed by the (party-in-person) power agent. The case was set ex parse on 1.11.2010. Power of Attorney not entertained to file this petition. Petition should be present. How this petition is maintainable. To be stated.”

5. Being aggrieved by the endorsement made by the learned Second Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai and refusal to entertain the application filed to set aside the ex parte order, the present revision petition has been filed by the authorised power agent.

6. Taking this Court through the general power of attorney, executed by Mr. Terance Alex, revision petitioner, authorising Mr. Manu, his close relative and family friend to appear and represent on behalf of the revision petitioner in the matrimonial and other cases and to file applications or petitions before the Family Court and other Courts, on his behalf, arising out of the above said proceedings, Mr.P. Prakash Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the revision petitioner is now residing in Dubai, UAE, he could not appear in person to file an application to set aside the order and also to contest the proceedings in I.D.O.P.No.3447 of 2009.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the said Mr. R. Manu, has already represented the revision peti