IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2317 of 2011(R) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/07/2011 IN IA 344/2011 IN OP..../2011 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER --------------------- FARASHA J., D/O. ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 25, RESIDING AT "KHUSHBU", PODIKUNDU, P.O.PALLIKUNNU, PUZHATHI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR-4, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL JABBAR K., S/O. ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'KHUSHBU', PODIKUNDU, P.O.PALLIKKUNNU, PUZHATHI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR-4. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SYED LATHIFUDHEEN H., S/O. HYDER, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT 143, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND SOUTH LEFT, METHER NAGAR, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, P.O., COCHIN-33. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OP(FC) NO.2317/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITINER THROUGH HER FATHER, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. P2:- COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO HER FATHER. P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE ORDER RETURNING THE SAME. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.(F.C) No.2317 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,J. Respondent's wife is the petitioner. She filed an application before the Family Court for dissolution of marriage. She authorised a duly constituted attorney. The Family Court, by the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 5.7.2011, dismissed I.A 344 of 2011 seeking permission for the power of attorney to act on her behalf. 2. We do not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondent having regard to the nature of the order that we pass here under. We dispense with notice to him without prejudice to his contentions on the maintainability of the wife's petition for dissolution of marriage. 3. In Mukundan Naveen v.Anjalika Dinesh, (2011(3) KLT 175), the Division Bench of this Court held that merely because it is a matrimonial dispute it does not mean that a party cannot institute proceedings through a duly constituted power of attorney. This O.P.(F.C) No.2317 OF 2011 2 binding decision was rendered by this Court on 28.6.2011. However, it would have, obviously, not been brought to the notice of the learned Family Court Judge when the impugned order was issued since even the publication of that judgment in a law report which is placed before us is only on 18.7.2011. The impugned order has to go in the light of the law as noticed in that precedent. We therefore set aside Ext.P3 order and direct the petitioner to place a copy of this judgment so that the Family Court can take up I.A.No.344 of 2011 and pass order afresh in the light of what is stated above and having regard to the law noticed by this Court in Mukundan Naveen (supra). Original petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns