Whether an interlocutory application is maintainable for permission of GPA to represent and depose on behalf of one of the party before the family court and any advocate of the choice of party to make available the skype facility for the court to interact with the party as he is in abroad - their lordships hled that Family Court to entertain the I.A. as it is maintainable and permit the GPA of the 2nd petitioner in O.P. to represent and depose on behalf of the 2nd petitioner in the O.P. and the Family Court shall also direct such GPA or any legal practitioner chosen by him to make available the skype facility for the Court to interact with the 2nd petitioner, who is staying at Melbourne, Australia and record the consent of 2nd petitioner and proceed with the matter thereafter as expeditiously as is possible.-2015 Telangana & A. P.msklawreports




The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent is his
wife.  Both of them have filed the aforesaid O.P.No.1547 of 2014
under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of
their marriage performed on 22.08.2010 by a decree of divorce by
mutual consent. 
The 1st petitioner in the O.P., who is the respondent herein, has
been attending to the proceedings by appearing before the Family
Court. 
However, the father of the 2nd petitioner, who holds the
General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the 2nd petitioner/husband in the
O.P., filed an interlocutory application bearing SR.No.2216 of 2015
on 09.04.2015 before the Family court to receive the chief affidavit of
PW.2/petitioner No.2, duly dispensing with the personal appearance
of the 2nd petitioner before the Family Court.  
The 2nd petitioner has sworn to a detailed affidavit and got it notarized by
a notary public of South Melbourne, Australia.  
That interlocutory
application has been returned with a cryptic order dated 09.04.2015,
which reads as under:
      Petition is returned as not maintainable.
      It is against this order the present revision is filed.
whether a GPA holder can represent a party in Family Court O.P. and
also depose on behalf of his principal.
 in K. BHARATHY, GUDIVADA AND     
ANOTHER v. AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 50 OF A.P.S.E.          
ACT- CUM-LABOUR OFFICER, MACHILIPATNAM AND            
ANOTHER (1999 (3) ALD 420) and contended that no person    
holding a Power of Attorney can examine himself as a witness
and hence, the evidence brought on record through the
Special Power of Attorney holder, viz., PW-1 should be
eschewed and since the petitioner has not examined herself,
the above petition should be dismissed.
       Hence, the question as to 
whether a Power of Attorney
holder can be examined as a witness requires a deeper
consideration.

  Therefore, the contention
canvassed by the learned counsel for the Respondent placing
reliance upon a judgment in K. BHARATHY, GUDIVADA AND      
ANOTHER case cited (1 supra), is not tenable.  It is altogether
a different thing that a Power of Attorney holder is not liable to
be granted permission to plead in a Court, which is an
exercise, regulated by Section 32 of the Advocates Act, while
the act of deposing as a witness on behalf of the Principal, is
not such a regulated exercise. Therefore, the correct way to
understand the judgment in K. BHARATHY, GUDIVADA AND       
ANOTHER case cited (1 supra) is that the power of attorney
holder is not entitled to plead on behalf of the Principal, but
he can only lead evidence or settle the pleading in the form of
a plaint or written statement or petition.

       In view of the above clear cut pronouncement, it is evident that
a GPA holder can depose and also lead evidence on behalf of his
principal.

 whether the Family Court can entertain an
application presented by a legal practitioner in view of the provision
contained in Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
 Keeping the very object behind the Family Courts Act, 1984,
read with the spirit behind Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
the Family Court could have entertained the interlocutory application
in as much as legal practitioners are not totally forbidden from
rendering assistance to the Family Court. 
  Increasingly Family Courts have been noticing that one of the
parties is stationed abroad.  It may not be always possible for such
parties to undertake trip to India, for variety of good reasons.  On the
intended day of examination of a particular party, the proceedings
may not go on, or even get completed possibly, sometimes due to pre-
occupation with any other more pressing work in the Court.  But,
however, technology, particularly, in the Information sector has
improved by leaps and bounds.  Courts in India are also making
efforts to put to use the technologies available.  Skype is one such
facility, which is easily available.  Therefore, the Family Courts are
justified in seeking the assistance of any practicing lawyer to provide
the necessary skype facility in any particular case.  For that purpose,
the parties can be permitted to be represented by a legal practitioner,
who can bring a mobile device.  By using the skype technology,
parties who are staying abroad can not only be identified by the
Family Court, but also enquired about the free will and consent of
such party.  This will enable the litigation costs to be reduced greatly
and will also save precious time of the Court.  Further, the other
party available in the Court can also help the Court in not only
identifying the other party, but would be able to ascertain the
required information.  Accordingly, I direct the Family Court to
entertain the I.A. as it is maintainable and permit the GPA of the 2nd
petitioner in O.P. to represent and depose on behalf of the 2nd
petitioner in the O.P. and the Family Court shall also direct such GPA
or any legal practitioner chosen by him to make available the skype
facility for the Court to interact with the 2nd petitioner, who is staying
at Melbourne, Australia and record the consent of 2nd petitioner and
proceed with the matter thereafter as expeditiously as is possible.
      Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed.  No order as
to costs.
        Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall
also stand closed.

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more