Chennai: The Madras High Court, in a major relief to estranged couples, on Wednesday ruled that family courts should not insist on the personal presence of parties both during filing and hearings.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar, while hearing a case ordered that the petitions could be filed through power of attorneys and that the couples could attend the hearing through video call from any part of the world and not necessarily through Indian consulates.
After finding out that a major chunk of mutual consent petitions are suspended or stalled because of parties not being able to appear in person for multiple reasons, including travel restrictions, Kumar framed guidelines to eradicate such difficulties faced by concerned parties.
"Petitions can be filed either by parties directly or by the power of attorney of parties, provided the power of attorney is registered or properly adjudicated," Kumar said.
Both parties can be present through video calls from their respective spots, the court said. "Virtual proceedings provide an opportunity to modernise the system by making it more affordable and citizen-friendly, enabling the aggrieved to access justice from any part of the country in the world," it mentioned.
Kumar passed these guidelines while hearing three revision petitions. The first revision was filed by a woman working in the US who had tied the knot in Chennai in 2016. After her marriage, she went to Washington and settled there. However, in 2021, the couple decided to part together after fights took over.
After their decision, she returned to Chennai in January 2023 to file the divorce petition. Unable to get a visa, her estranged husband was unable to travel back for the divorce procedure. He then executed a power of attorney in favour of his father and sought permission to appear through video call.
The woman, too, had to return to the US as she was bound by contracts to join the office and resume work. She then filed applications before the Family Court wanting to appoint her mother as her power agent, to appear through video call and consult legal counsel.
Unfortunately, the Family Court returned all the applications and insisted that the statements of the parties be recorded only if they appear through a video call from the Indian consulate. It is to be noted that the time gap between the two countries further caused more misery, delaying the process.
With a difference of more than 12 hours between the two countries, the woman requested the Family court to hear the matter at 10 am but the family court even rejected this request as working hours usually began only at 10.30 am, the petitioner complained.
Read More:
- Defamation: HC Reserves Orders On TN Assembly Speaker's Petition
- Plea in Madras HC Against Tamil Nadu DCM Udhayanidhi Stalin To Wear Formal Attire In Government Events
- Supreme Court Dismisses Pranav Srinivasan's Citizenship Plea, Opens Path For Future Applications
