IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5575 OF 2010 Between:- Rathna Sirisha Chandra …Petitioner A n d Rathna Sateesh Chandra …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5575 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 22-11-2010 in O.P.No.231 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the presence of the parties was considered essential. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Both of them filed O.P.No.231 of 2010 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act to grant a decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage by mutual consent. The trial Court, by the impugned order, directed presence of both parties to effect reconciliation. 4. The learned counsel for both parties stated that all the efforts made towards reconciliation failed and that both parties have agreed to the terms and conditions of settlement of the matrimonial dispute by way of divorce by mutual consent and accordingly a petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and the statutory period of six months is also over and there has been no reconciliation between the parties during the said period and hence final orders will have to be passed in the O.P. 5. Both parties relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in MRS.PADMAKIRAN RAO V. B.VENKATARAMANA RAO[1], wherein this Court held as follows:- “The learned Judge observed that unless the parties are personally present, it would be difficult for the Court to assess whether they have changed their mind since the date of filing the petition. We do not think that this is a correct view to be taken. “Hearing’ does not necessarily mean that both parties have to be examined. The word ‘hearing’ is often used in a broad sense which need not always mean personal hearing. In any case, the evidence of one of the parties i.e., the appellant herein was recorded by the Court. Thus, even if the word ‘hearing’ is construed in a literal sense, that requirement must be deemed to have been satisfied in the instant case in view of the examination of the appellant. On the husband’s side, there is evidence in the form of an affidavit which can be legitimately taken into account in view of Order XIX Rule 1 C.P.C. It is not as if the affidavit has been doubted or the other party wanted to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit. When there are no suspicious circumstances or any particular reason to think that the averments in the affidavit may not be true there is absolutely no reason why the Court should not act on the affidavit filed by one of the parties.” The above decision was followed by this Court in another decision dated 17-11-2006 in C.R.P.No.4584 of 2006, wherein also under similar set of circumstances, the trial Court was directed to proceed with the matter without insisting on the personal appearance of the husband. 6. It is stated that the respondent on account of his employment in USA is unable to attend the Court at Hyderabad and, therefore, he executed a GPA in favour of his father. That apart, it is stated that the respondent also filed an affidavit to the effect that he agreed for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on the ground of irretrievable break down of matrimonial relationship. 6. Inasmuch as the O.P is still pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, it is considered imprudent to make any observations on the merits of the case. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to dispose of the matter on its merits without insisting on the physical presence of the respondent-husband before the Court, in view of the principles laid down in the above decision. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th February, 2011 Note: CC im (3) days B/o Lrkm. [1] 1995(3) ALD 341 (D.B)