Procedural non-compliance with Rule 33 of the Civil Rules of Practice regarding an agent's affidavit is a curable technical irregularity and cannot be used as a ground to dismiss a proceeding, as procedural law is designed to facilitate justice rather than defeat it.

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr. Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the resident of United States of America (USA). He has filed a petition under Section - 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Order - VII, Rule - 1 and Section 151 of CPC, seeking a direction to respondent to hand over the custody of minor child, Anina Gajjala, to him. Since he is resident of USA, he has executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA), dated 29.04.2025, appointing his father, Mr.Gajjala Mahendra Reddy, as his Power of Attorney Holder.

3. In the said GPA, it is specifically mentioned that he empowered his Power of Attorney Holder to act on his behalf in connection with criminal cases, family disputes with his wife, including filing cases and defend cases on his behalf before any appropriate legal Forum or Authority. He has also authorized his father to appoint advocates or legal counsel on his behalf for the purpose of conducting legal proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner represented by his father as power of attorney holder filed the aforesaid petition vide GWOP SR No.1079 of 2025 before learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal. He has also filed an application under Rule - 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice (CRP), vide I.A. No.486 of 2025 permitting him to represent the petitioner.

4. Vide impugned order dated 25.08.2025, learned Family Court dismissed the said application holding that the Principal has not engaged any counsel whatsoever. The Vakalatnama is signed by the GPA Holder, appointing an advocate, and it amounts to the GPA holder acting not just as an Agent for signing pleadings, but as the defacto litigant and the client of the advocate. Learned Family Court also placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in M. Ruhina Khan v. Abdur Rahman Khan , (2018 (5) ALD 461).

5. The trial Court also gave the following reasons:

i. The right to practice law and to represent a party in judicial proceedings is governed by the Advocates Act, 1961. An Advocate enrolled under the Act is entitled to represent a party before any Court. A GPA Holder unless he is himself a qualified advocate, cannot assume this role. By engaging counsel by General Power of Attorney holder for a suit or proceeding filed for his principal, the GPA holder is effectively attempting to act as a conduct, which blurs the lines of professional responsibility and accountability of the advocate towards the real party-in-interest.

ii. The matter in question is one of custody of a minor child. Such proceedings are inherently suigeneris. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration for the Court. The Court’s jurisdiction is paternal and supervisory. It is imperative for the Court to interact with, observe, and receive instructions directly from the person who seeks the sacred responsibility of custody - the parent or guardian. Allowing a case of this nature to be prosecuted entirely by a proxy, without the direct engagement of the principal parent with the Court or even with his own lawyer, is contrary to the very nature of these proceedings. The principal’s absence from the entire legal process, including the engagement of his counsel, raises serious questions about his bona fide interest and commitment to the welfare of the child.

6. The trial Court also held that failure to file an affidavit under Rule - 33 of CRP from the Principal is not a mere technical curable defect in this context. It is a symptom of the complete abdication of the p