IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 6200 of 2025 and CMP No.30563 of 2025

1. Evelyn Amrita Russell D/o Daniel Devasirvatham, Rep by her POA D.Daniel, 1-A, Secretariat Colony, Baracah Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

Presently Res. at Richard Wagner Stasse 27, Petitioner(s)

68165 Mannheim, Germany.

Vs

1. Alexander Samimmanuel Russell S/o. Russel Victor Paulraj, 11/23, Erran St, Purasawakkam, Chennai 7. Presently Res.

at Richard - Wagner Strasse 27, 68165 Respondent(s)

Mannheim, Germany.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the docket order dated 13.11.2025 in I.A.No.7 of 2024 in O.P.No.5364 of 2022 on the file of V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s): Pushkala For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Kalyan Jhabakh For M/s.Surana And Surana

ORDER

The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and admittedly, both do not reside in India. The respondent, as petitioner, has filed a petition in OP No.5364 of 2022, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, before the V Additional Family Court, Chennai. The petition was dismissed for default on 29.07.2025, recording that both the petitioner and the respondent were absent. The respondent/petitioner herein took out an application in I.A.No.7 of 2024 for restoring OP No.5364 of 2022 to file and the petitioner herein was set exparte in the said application on 22.10.2025. An application was filed by the father of the petitioner/wife, who happens to be a Lawyer himself. The Court below has passed the following docket order on 13.11.2025, which is under challenge, in the present revision:-

“Petitioner present. Respondent not present, her father Tr.Daniel present. He is not ready to answer the questions put to him. Hence this Court order the power granted to him to the respondent in this case in IA No.7 of 2024 is revoked. Exparte enquiry by 03.12.2025. Finally respondent to appear on 03.12.25. If she seems necessary.”

2. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that the parties are appearing through video conferencing and both their applications seeking permission to appear through video conference have already been allowed and therefore, there is no necessity for the father to represent the petitioner in the revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would however state that there is nobody to represent the interests of the petitioner/wife before the Family Court and only in that regard, her father sought for permission to represent as Power Agent and initially permission was also granted in I.A.No.7 of 2024 and the Court has already permitted the father to represent his daughter, not being an advocate, but being her father, who is the petitioner herein.

4. I do not see why there was any necessity to revoke the power permission in the first place. The father of the petitioner would be entitled to represent the petitioner for the purposes of filing applications and making representations and the oral and documentary evidence will have to be necessarily adduced by the petitioner/wife, for which, permission was already granted to appear through video conferencing. The docket order passed by the Family Court is unsustainable and as pointed out by Mr.Kalyan Jhabakh, the learned counsel for the respondent, the Family Court has literally been confused because the father, Power Agent, is himself a lawyer.

5. In the light of the above, the order revoking the authority in I.A.No.7 of

2024 is recalled and set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner alone shall tender evidence in the main proceedings and the role of the petitioner’s father would be only as a power agent and merely to present documents and file applications, counter-affidavits on behalf of her daughter, who is the petitioner herein.

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr

6. Considering that O.P.No.5364 of 2022. is ripe for trial and pending from the year 2022 onwards, the Judge, V Additional Famiily Court, Che