Allowed

Nijo Antony v. Nil

Kerala HC2 Jul 2021Mat.Appeal/347/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against an order directing appellant petitioners to appear in person for counselling and evidence under s. 10A of the Indian Divorce Act. The Court set aside the order and directed the Family Court to conduct remaining proceedings via video conferencing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Family Court directed to conduct remaining proceedings via video conferencing.

Nijo Antony Vs Nil — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2021

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2021 IN IA 2/2021 IN OP 170/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2:

¶9

1 NIJO ANTONY, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O JOHN, ARAKKAL HOUSE, THACHAMPARA P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678593, REPRESENTED BY MUKTHYAR AGENT ANTONY JOHN - DO-

¶10

2 BISMI ANTONY, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O K.S. ANTONY, KARUMATHI HOUSE, CHOVVARA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683571

¶11

REPRESENTED BY MUKTHYAR AGENT K.S. ANTONY -DO-

¶12

BY ADVS. JOHN VARGHESE SONU AUGUSTINE

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

NIL

¶15

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Mat.Appeal No.347/2021

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2021

¶20

Dr.Kauser Edappagath, J.

¶21

The appellants/petitioners who are husband and wife filed a joint petition for divorce u/s 10A of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 before the Family Court, Ottapalam. Since the petitioners were employed outside India and they were unable to travel due to Covid restriction, they filed IA Nos.2/2021 and 4/2021 to permit them to appear before the Family Court through power of attorney holder and also to conduct the case through video conferencing.

¶22

The court below disposed of IA No.2/2021 as per order dated 9.4.2021 whereby the petitioners were directed to be present in person for counselling, mediation and for giving evidence. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶24

Mat.Appeal No.347/2021

¶25

-:3:-

¶26

Admittedly, the appellants are not in India and they are not in a position to appear before the court to take part in the proceedings u/s 10A of the Divorce Act. This Court (ourselves) in Sethi v. Nil (2021 (2) KHC 275) held that in a proceedings u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, petitioners can be represented by power of attorney holder and the enquiry can be conducted through video conferencing facility.

¶27

A joint petition for divorce was filed by the appellants/petitioners on 7/3/2020. Thereafter, the first petitioner left to Kuwait and the second petitioner left to New Zealand, their respective place of work. The Family Court conducted counselling through online platform zoom on 20/1/2021. The remaining proceedings also can be conducted utilizing the video conferencing facility in the light of the decision mentioned above.

¶28

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Family Court is directed to conduct the remaining proceedings in the matter through video conferencing. The Family Court is at liberty to insist for the physical presence of the

¶29

Mat.Appeal No.347/2021

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

power of attorney holders, if necessary. Needles to say that the Family Court shall not insist for the physical presence of the appellants/petitioners.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

sd/-

¶36

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Nijo Antony v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nijo Antony v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jinesh K.P. Vs Jomisha

Janeesh K.P. Vs Jomisha

Jomisha K.C Vs Janeesh K.P

Prasanth Mohan Das Vs Saranya Sasi

Jabeen Ihsan Vs Noushima Basheer

Tony Thomas Vs v.P.Joy