IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.No. 132 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/01/2009 IN CMP/987/2008 IN MC.497/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- THOMAS VARGHESE @ CHRISTY, S/O.VARGHESE,KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, ADICHIKKAMALA,CHUZHALI AMSOM,NIDUVALOOR DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. REP. BY P.A.HOLDER, SIJO THOMAS, AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.THOMAS VARGHESE OF DO-DO- BY ADV. MR.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- SUSAMMA THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS VARGHESE, KAPPUMKARA,CHUZHALI AMSOM, NIDUVALOOR DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. ADV. MS.SANDHYA RAJU FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ R.P.(FC)NO. 132 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 ORDER Respondent appears through counsel. 2. This revision is in challenge of the order dated 22.1.2009 in C.M.P.No.987/08 in M.C.No.497/07 of Family Court, Kannur. M.C.No.497/07 is preferred by the respondent-wife claiming maintenance from the petitioner, her husband. As the petitioner is abroad, he wanted to appear in the court below through his son and power of attorney holder. Power of attorney was produced along with C.M.P.No.987/08. Court below as per order dated 22.1.2009 dismissed that petition. Learned counsel submitted that after the dismissal of the petition, petitioner had come from abroad for counselling, counselling is over and he had to return in connection with his employment. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that petitioner may be permitted to be represented in the proceedings in the court below through his power of attorney holder. Apprehension of the respondent is that on the strength of the power of attorney, the R.P.(FC)No.132/09 2 holder may attempt to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner on the contentious issues. 2. So far as C.M.P.No.987/2008 is concerned, the prayer is only to permit the power of attorney holder to appear and conduct the case on behalf of petitioner. There is no reason why that request should be refused. However, on the question whether the power of attorney holder is competent to give evidence on disputed matters, I leave that matter to the court below to decide, at the appropriate stage. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and Crl.M.C.No.987/2008 will stand allowed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd R.P.(FC)No.132/09 3