The court affirmed that technical objections should not obstruct mutual consent divorce proceedings, allowing video conferencing and Power of Attorney representation.

COMMON ORDER

C.R.P.No.1994 of 2024

The petitioner/estranged wife of the respondent filed this revision seeking a direction to the Principal Family Court, Chennai to number the unnumbered I.A. in O.P.No.2148 of 2023 filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce by mutual consent.

2.The contention of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 23.06.2016 at Sri Kuchalambal Kalyana Mahal, Chetpet, Chennai according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage registered as S.No.257 of 2016 at SRO, Periamet on the same day. After the marriage, they lived in USA. They last resided together in Washington State, USA. During the course of their marriage life they had some differences. They tried their best to workout and resolve the issue. The advice and efforts taken by the elders and well-wishers to reconcile the dispute failed. Thereafter both acknowledged that divorce was not because of any specific fault on either side but it became evident that they were incompatible and the differences were irreconcilable. Thus, it was not possible to save the marriage. They were not able to live together as spouses anymore and their marriage broken down. The petitioner and respondent got separated amicably and living separately since 01.08.2021. Since the marriage has irretrievably broken down and it is no longer conducive to retain any matrimonial relationship, both the petitioner and respondent agreed to amicably dissolve their marriage through mutual consent, with following terms:

(i) Since both the petitioner and respondent are well qualified, they are not seeking any maintenance or alimony from each other and give up their right to claim for maintenance in any proceedings, civil or criminal before any Court.

(ii)The petitioner and respondent have returned their respective articles, and there is no claim for return of any movable property from each other.

3.The petitioner came down from USA to Chennai to file the mutual consent divorce petition. Since the respondent could not travel to India due to visa renewal issues, he filed a petition to be represented by his power agent, his father Mr.Ramkumar and also filed a petition to appear before the Family Court through video-conferencing. The petitioner had no objection for the respondent appearing through video conferencing and being represented by a power agent, his father. Hence, sought for a decree and judgment to dissolve the marriage solemnised between the petitioner and respondent on 23.06.2016 at Sri Kuchalambal Kalyana Mahal, Chetpet, Chennai and registered as S.No.257 of 2016 at SRO, Periamet.

4.The respondent executed a Deed of Special Power of Attorney in favour of his father on 26.04.2023 and the same was adjudicated at SRO, Mylapore as Document No.1350 of 2023. Thereafter, the mutual consent petition presented by the petitioner and respondent's father (POA) on 15.05.2023, along with it interim application, to appear through video- conferencing and to be represented by a power of attorney for the respondent filed. The respondent appeared before the Court through video-conferencing and the mutual consent petition was numbered as O.P.No.2148 of 2023, which is currently pending on the file of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Six months thereafter, the case posted for hearing on 15.11.2023, since the visa issue pertaining to the respondent could not be resolved and he was unable to travel to India and not appeared before the Family Court and the case got adjourned to 29.01.2024. Thereafter for the same reason it was again adjourned to 23.02.2024. Finding that the mutual divorce petition getting stalled on technicality, the petitioner approached this Court in C.R.P.(PD) No.762 of 2024 and this Court by order dated 23.02.2024, permitted the respondent to appear through video conferencing. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had to return to USA otherwise she would lose her employment and livelihood, as she was stayi