IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: September 05, 2008 Date of Order: September 19, 2008 CM(M) 1030/2008
19.09.2008
Mr. Vinay Jude Dias ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi with
Mr. Anshu Mahajan and
Mr. Vikas Aggarwal, Advs.
Versus
Ms. Renajeet Kaur ...Respondent
Through:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes. JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of learned ADJ dated 25th August, 2008 whereby in a Divorce Petition by mutual consent filed by the
petitioners, the Court directed personal appearance of both the parties for
purpose of its satisfaction regarding an inquiry under Section 10(A) of the
Divorce Act.
2. Notice of the petition was accepted by the respondent in the Court and respondent supported the petition and wanted the petition to be
allowed. Thus, the Court has only to examine whether the personal appearance of
the petitioner before the Court below was necessary in order to obtain divorce
with mutual consent under Section 10(A) of Divorce Act.
3. In the present case, the special power of attorney in favour of one Mr. Lal Babu Tiwari was executed by the petitioner (husband) to appear
before the Court and testify about the contents of the petition. The petitioner
has signed the petition before Indian consulate High Commission of India in UK
under Section 3(2) of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act,
1947 under which the documents do not require any further evidence.
4. The learned ADJ relying on Janaki Vasudeo Bhojwani Vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 439 wherein Supreme Court had held that ?a general power
of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he
cannot become witness on behalf of party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witness box on behalf of
himself?, considered that the attorney cannot depose in the Court to satisfy the
inquiry as required under Section 10(A) of Divorce Act.
5. There can be no dispute that the attorney of the petitioner can appear in the Court on behalf of the party and do the act as specified in power
of attorney. An attorney is not an incompetent witness. He can appear in the
Court and depose in the Court as a witness in respect of facts which are in his
knowledge. He cannot depose in respect of the facts which are not in his
knowledge and knowledge of which has been derived by him from principal without
witnessing the facts himself. However, if an attorney has witnessed all those
facts himself which were also witnessed by the principal, an attorney cannot be
told that he cannot appear in the witness box and depose in the Court in respect
of the facts known to him. Facts which are within the special knowledge of
principal and are not in the knowledge of attorney can only be deposed by the
principal. Whether the parties were married on a particular day, is not a
private act of the parties. Marriage is normally a public act in this country
and evidence can be given by anyone who has knowledge of the fact. Whether the
parties are living separate or not is also known to other people associated with
the parties and is not something secret. Similarly, for how long parties were
living separate can be deposed in the Court by any person who is aware of the
facts. If an attorney aware of these facts and can answer the questions of the
Court, the attorney cannot be told that he is not a competent witness or his
statement would not be recorded. Similarly an attorney, on the basis of instructions/directions given to him, can answer the queries, if there was any
possibility of parties patching up and living together or the marriage has
broken down irretrievably. An attorney has to be allowed to appear in the
witness box and make statement. The Court may reject that part of his statement
which is based on hearsay or which he has no personal knowledge. But he cannot
be prevented from appearing in the witness box and deposing and answering the
queries. Same is the import of judgment of Supreme Court in Janaki Vasudeo
Bhojwani (supra) wherein Supreme Court had not debarred an attorney from
appearing in the witness box but the Supreme Court has stated the facts which
are only in the knowledge of the principal, about those facts attorney cannot
testify in the Court.
6. This Court in Neelima Chopra vs. Anil Chopra 1986 (11) DRJ 188 held that if both the parties, by way of affidavits or through counsel, state
that they are married, and are able to produce proof of the marriage and that
they have been living separately and have not been able to live together for the
prescribed period, then there can be no reason as to why the Court should not
record its satisfaction as envisaged under Section 13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage
Act, despite the fact that parties had not appeared in person and pass a decree
for divorce.
7. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Annalie Prashad vs. Romesh Prashad AIR 1968 Calcutta 48 had made following observations : ?3. In our opinion, neither of the above two reasons can be sustained in law.
The Special Marriage Act by Section 40 attracts the Code of Civil Procedure
subject, of course, to the other provisions of the said statute and to such
rules as the High Court may make in that behalf. The learned trial Judge does
not say that there is anything in the statute or in the rules, which would
conflict with the view that affidavit evidence would be permissible, unless we
agree with him that the Act, having prescribed that the parties should be heard,
would necessarily require their personal appearance or presence before the
Court. We do not, however, think that that is the consequence of the words
``hearing the parties'` and, accordingly, the reason given by the learned trial
Judge in that behalf cannot be accepted We are also unable to agree that, in a
case of divorce by mutual consent, affidavit evidence should be excluded on the
ground that in such a case, it is desirable that the parties themselves should
be present in Court. In the premises, Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure
would be attracted by the above special statute as part of the Code and would
not be excluded either expressly or by necessary implication.?
8. Where the parties are living far away from the jurisdiction of the Court competent to dissolve the marriage, the parties after filing their
affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf. Attorney is competent
to act on behalf of the principal on the basis of power of attorney executed by
the principal. The Courts have been allowing attorneys to file the petition, to
withdraw the petition, to carry on proceedings in the Court on behalf of their
principal in all other cases. The attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as
per instructions of their principle. The Court can take necessary precautions
to prevent frauds being perpetuated on it but unless the Court smells some kind
of fraud being played with it, the Court should normally recognize the act of
the attorneys.
9. I therefore allow this petition. The order of the Trial Court insisting on the personal appearance of the parties is set aside. The attorneys
are permitted to make statement before the Court below. September 19, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. ak