HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4367 OF 2010 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the orders dated 24.04.2010 passed in I.A.No. 106 of 2010 in HMOP No. 2 of 2010 by the Family Court at Guntur. Petitioner herein is legally wedded wife of the respondent herein and the suit has been filed to declare the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Court in U.S.A dissolving the marriage as null and void and to direct the husband to comply with the judgment and decree dated 9.7.2009 and to restore the matrimonial life. The respondent-husband herein filed I.A.No. 106 of 2010 under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, seeking permission to engage a counsel on behalf of the petitioner-respondent in the OP. That I.A was allowed by the court below observing as under: “The petitioner is defending by engaging advocate in all the proceedings instituted by the respondent. Therefore permission to engage Advocate cannot be rejected as if the spouses have approached Family Court without any complicated legal history of their disputes. However, the petitioner has not sought permission for appearance of GPA on his behalf in this Court. This subject is dealt with by Order 3 of CPC R/w Family Courts Act, 1984. Therefore, without seeking separate permission for this purpose, GPA cannot be permitted to attend the Court on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly the point is decided. In the result, the petition is allowed and permission granted to the petitioner to engage advocate.” Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is field by the petitioner-wife. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the affidavit was filed by the father of the respondent-husband herein but under Section 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, the party has to file an affidavit seeking permission of the Court to engage a GPA on his behalf and to permit GPA to proceed with the matter or to engage an advocate. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. For ready reference Rule 32 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, is extracted hereunder: “32. Party appearing by Agent: (1) When a party appears by any agent, other than an Advocate, the agent shall, before making or doing any appearance, application, or act, in or to the Court, file in Court the power of attorney, or written authority, thereunto authorizing him or a properly authenticated copy thereof together with an affidavit that the said authority still subsisting, or, in the case of an agent carrying on a trade or business on behalf of a party, without a written authority, an affidavit stating the residence of his principal, the trade or business carried on by the agent on his behalf and the connection of the same with the subject matter of the suit, and that no other agent is expressly authorized to make or do such appearance, application, or act.” In view of the above rule position, and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.4.2010 passed in I.A.No. 106 of 2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh disposal. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all objections permissible under law by filing a counter affidavit. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the I.A within a period of four weeks from today and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 08.04.2011 KA