SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P.B. BALAJI
EVELYN AMRITA RUSSELL – Appellant
Versus
ALEXANDER SAMIMMANUEL RUSSELL – Respondent



##PAGE1##

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 02:50:47 pm )

##PAGE2##

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 02:50:47 pm )

##PAGE3##

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top