Telangana High Court
Mr. Anjaneyulu Kukatla vs Whom So Ever Eoncerned on 3 July, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1922 OF 2026
DATE: 03-07-2026
Between:
Mr. Anjaneyulu Kukatla & another .. Petitioners
Vs.
Whomsoever concerned .. Respondent
This Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. J. Pradeep Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners – husband and wife filed a petition under
Section – 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of
marriage by mutual consent. The said petition was filed on
21.04.2026 (in fact it was filed on 18.05.2026) before the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Court at
Medchal, and the said Court returned the said OP on 18.05.2026 with
the following objections:
2
KL,J
CRP No.1922 of 2026“State how this petition is maintainable when the parents of
the petitioners are available, how the GPA of relative and
friends of the petitioners can be considered.
Counsel for petitioners is to be attested in list of
documents in permission petition and under Rule – 32 of
Civil Rules of Practice.
Hence may be returned.
Time (7) days. Sd/- II ADJ.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners resubmitted the case
bundle with the following explanation:
“1. As per O.3 R.II of CPC, any person with valid GPA is a
recognized agent. Accordingly petition U.R.32 of CRP
has been filed.
2. Complied.
Any further objections may be called on bench. Hence,
re-submitted.
Sd/-08.06.26, counsel for petitioners.”
4. Even then, without satisfying with the said explanation
offered by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned trial Court
posted the aforesaid FCOP to 17.07.2026 for considering the
objections. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court.
5. Referring to Order – III, Rule – 2 of CPC, learned counsel for
the petitioners would submit that the petitioners can appoint anybody
3
KL,J
CRP No.1922 of 2026
as their Attorneys to do a particular thing. In the present case to
represent them in the aforesaid FCOP filed by them seeking
dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. There is no need of
appointing the parents or relatives of the parties.
6. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners
that the parents of petitioner No.1 – husband are not more and the
parents of petitioner No.2 are suffering from several old age ailments
and are the residents of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, they have
appointed Mr. Peduri Rajesh and Mr. Kalluri Anil Babu respectively,
as their Attorneys to represent them in the aforesaid FCOP.
7. It is also the specific contention of the petitioners that
presently they are residing at USA and they have filed an application
in the aforesaid FCOP, to waive the cooling period of six (06) months.
Therefore, learned Family Court has to consider the said application
also in accordance with law.
8. In Terance Alex v. Mary Sowmya Rose1, wherein the
Madras High Court dealt with the issue as to whether a power of
attorney can represent a party to matrimonial proceedings in Family
1
. CRP (NPD) No.4361 of 2010, decided on 16.12.2010
4
KL,J
CRP No.1922 of 2026
Court. Referring to Order – III, Rule – 1 of CPC, Section – 10 of the
Family Courts Act and the judgments rendered by it held as under:
“It is well settled legal position that there is no
legal impediment under the Family Courts Act, for
a Power of Attorney to appear on behalf of the
Principal and the only legal embargo is that the
recognised agent should not be a legal practitioner.
Any person, not being a legal practitioner, can be
nominated as an agent under Order 3 Rule 2 CPC,
to prosecute or defend the parties and until the
Family Court passess any specific order, directing
appearance of the party, depending upon the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
9. In Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan 2, the
Rajasthan High Court held as under:
“23. Apart from taking into consideration the fact
and circumstances of the case, one thing is evident
from the record itself that the plaintiff has
miserably failed to produce any type of evidence
to show that the intention of the party was
otherwise. A general power of attorney holder can
appear, plead and act on behalf of the party, but he
cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He
can only appear in his own capacity. No one can2
. MANU/RH/0397/1985
5
KL,J
CRP No.1922 of 2026delegate the power to appear in witness-box on
behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is
altogether a different act. A general power of
attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a
witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of
the plaintiff.”
10. The aforesaid principle laid down by the Rajasthan High
Court was by the Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v.
Indusind Bank Ltd. 3
11. Referring to the principle laid down by the Rajasthan High
Court in Shambhu Dutt Shastri2, the Madras High Court in
Sakunthala v. Anandarajan 4, held as under:
“7. Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
authorises a recognised power of attorney holder to
appear in a case and act on behalf of the original
person. The said provision also contemplates that
any person who has connection with trade or
business or commercial transaction, can also
appear and give evidence, if so expressly
authorised.”
“9. The Supreme Court has also considered the
judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Shambhu3
. (2005) 2 SCC 217
4
. MANU/TN/9206/2007
6
KL,J
CRP No.1922 of 2026Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was
held that the word “act” under Order III Rule 2,
CPC does not include the act of power of attorney
holder to appear as witness on behalf of the party.
It was further held that the power of attorney
holder can appear only as a witness in his personal
capacity and whatever knowledge he has about the
case, he can state orally and he cannot appear as
witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of
that party. It was further observed that even if the
plaintiff is not able to appear before the Court, the
plaintiff is not left in the lurch. There is a provision
for appointment of commissioner for recording
evidence under CPC.”
12. In Harshada Bharat Deshmukh v. Bharat Appasaheb
Deshmukh 5, the Bombay High Court held as under:
“10. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act do
not contain any provision abrogating the power of
power of attorney holder under the Code of Civil
Procedure, and therefore, the procedure governing
the proceedings filed under section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act would be governed by Order
III as well as Order VI of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The Judge, Family Court has not given
any consideration to the provisions governing the5
. 2018 SCC OnLine Bom. 619
7
KL,J
CRP No.1922 of 2026procedure in relation to the proceedings of mutual
divorce filed under section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act. It is imperative on the part of the
Family Court to entertain the application for
divorce by filing mutual consent presented to it on
the ground that the parties have been residing
separately for more than a year and they have not
been able to live together and they have mutually
agreed to dissolve the marriage. The procedure for
dissolving the marriage is set out in sub-section (2)
of section 13-B which mandates the Court on
being satisfied that a marriage has been
solemnized and that the averments in the petition
for mutual consent filed by the parties is true, to
pass a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage,
after affording an opportunity to the parties and
after making such enquiry as it thinks fit. The
Court has to thus ascertain the expenses of a
marriage and irrevocable break down of the
marriage with no possibility of any reconciliation.”
13. In the light of the aforesaid principle and the discussion and
also considering the aforesaid facts, the present revision is disposed of
directing the II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-II
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family
Court at Medchal, to consider the aforesaid explanation offered by the
8
KL,J
CRP No.1922 of 2026
petitioners and number the aforesaid FCOP if the same is otherwise in
order, and dispose of it strictly in accordance with law. Learned
Family Court is also directed to dispose of the interlocutory
application filed by the petitioners seeking to waive cooling period of
six (06) months period strictly in accordance with law. In the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
the revision shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
3rd July, 2026
Note:
Furnish C.C. of order by 06.07.2026.
(B/O.) Mgr
