THE HON’’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1640 OF 2010 O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 03.02.2010 in I.A.No.570 of 2009 in H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 14-A C.P.C., was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. The respondent herein is the husband of the petitioner. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2008 through the G.P.A. seeking an order of divorce against the petitioner. The petitioner who entered appearance filed application under Order VI Rule 14-A CPC praying that the H.M.O.P. may be dismissed as not maintainable, as the respondent has not furnished his address. Order VI, Rule 14-A CPC states that every pleading filed by a party shall be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form, signed as provided in Rule 14, regarding the address of the party. The respondent/husband did not choose to furnish his address and even the application is not filed under his signature, but is filed only through GPA and the address of the GPA alone is furnished in the cause title of the petition. The respondent is stated to be residing at Kuwait. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show as to how the H.M.O.P. is not maintainable and the docket order in the O.P. shows that both the husband and wife appeared before the Court on 20.01.2010 and that reconciliation talks were held and failed. The learned Senior Civil Judge has, therefore, dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the respondent has appeared before the Court in connection with the reconciliation proceedings. It is to be noted that the relief prayed for in the H.M.O.P. is for grant of divorce. When that is so, it is only just and proper that the respondent herein, who filed the H.M.O.P., discloses his true and correct address in the petition, especially in view of Order VI, Rule 14-A CPC, which mandates that the respondent, who is the party, shall disclose his address. During the course of hearing of the Civil Revision Petition, the learned counsel for the respondent furnished the office address of the respondent as follows: “Varri Maheswara Rao, Pharmasist, Ibnsina Hospital, Ministry of Health, P.O.Box.No.25427, 13115, Safat, KUWAIT”. In as much as the address of the respondent herein is since furnished, the defect pointed out by the petitioner in terms of Order VI Rule 14-A CPC gets cured. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent has not obtained any permission from the Court under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice for filing the O.P. through a GPA. It is open to the petitioner to raise the said ground before the trial Court and seek appropriate relief in that regard, as the same does not fall for consideration in the present proceeding. In the circumstances the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as stated above. No costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30TH July, 2010 Pnv