IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04/12/2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL AND C.M.P.NO.18029 OF 2023 R.Vaishnavi ... Petitioner/Respondent/

Respondent Vs.

S.Magesh Kumar ... Respondent/Petitioner/

Petitioner PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated March 24, 2023 made in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.P.No.4172 of

2018 on the file of the II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Ms.Kanimozhi Mathi For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Gokulesh

O R D E R

The Revision Petitioner married the Respondent on September 08, 2011. In their wedlock, they were blessed with a male child, namely, S.M.Kaarthik Vishnuvardhan born on July 23, 2014. Thereafter, some misunderstandings arose between the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent, and the Revision Petitioner-Wife filed the Original Petition in O.P.No.1864 of 2016 before 'the II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai' ['Family Court' for short], to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce. In turn, the Respondent-Husband filed a petition under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of minor child-S.M.Kaarthick Vishnuvarthan in G.W.O.P.No.4172 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court.

2.The Respondent - Husband is working as a Marine Engineer and has to go sailing for a long period of time every year. Though he came to India on September 03, 2021, because of Covid-19 pandemic, he could not reach any convenient port and reached Chennai only on March 01, 2022. In these circumstances, the Guardian and Ward Original Petition filed by the Respondent-Husband against the Revision Petitioner-Wife, was dismissed for default on November 25, 2021. Hence, the Respondent-Husband filed a petition in I.A.No.1 of 2022 to restore the Original Petition and also filed another petition under Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in I.A.No.4 of 2022 seeking permission to appoint Mr.Ganesan Munusamy as his Power Agent. The Revision Petitioner - Wife, who is the respondent in I.A.No.4 of 2022, filed a counter and opposed it by stating that the alleged Power Agent of the Respondent - Husband is not a family member and not at all related to him.

3.The Trial Court after hearing both sides, relied upon a decision of this Court in R.R.Pauya -vs- Kanagavel reported in 2014 (5) CTC 177 and allowed the petition on the condition that the Power Agent can plead, appear and act on behalf of the principal, but he cannot enter into a witness box on behalf of the principal. Further, held that the Respondent- Husband shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required, such as for mediation and other proceedings.

4.Feeling aggrieved by the Order, the Respondent therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

5.Ms.Kanimozhi Mathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner-Wife submits that the Respondent-Husband cannot be allowed to appear through a Power Agent, as the Power Agent is neither related to the Respondent-Husband nor related to the Revision Petitioner-Wife. The proposed Power Agent is a third party. In a custody matter, a third party cannot be permitted to take part in the proceedings, that too when a Family Court proceedings are an in-camera proceedings. The Power Agent being a third party has no locus standi to participate in the Family Court proceedings. Further, in the Original Petition, enquiry commenced and absence of the Respondent - Husband would only prolong the case for an indefinite period. The Family Court without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, erred in allowing the petition. Accordingly, she prays to allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the Order passed by the Family Court.

6.In response to the above submissions, Mr.K.M.Gokulesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Husband would submit that the Respondent is working in a Merchant Navy Ship. B