Introduction

Divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 offers a streamlined mechanism for dissolving a marriage when both parties agree. However, practical difficulties often arise when one of the spouses is unable to be physically present for court proceedings—due to being abroad, incapacitated, or otherwise unavailable. In such situations, the question arises: Can a spouse be represented through a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder in mutual consent divorce proceedings?

This article explores the legal validity of such representation under Indian law, with reference to statutory provisions and significant judicial pronouncements including Harshada Bharat Deshmukh v. Bharat Appasaheb Deshmukh and M.F.A. No. 4453 of 2020 (FC) before the Karnataka High Court.

Relevant Legal Provisions

1. Section 13B – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 13B allows for divorce by mutual consent when:

• Both parties have been living separately for more than one year,
• They have mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage, and
• They jointly file a petition before the Family Court.

2. Section 10 – Family Courts Act, 1984

This section stipulates that proceedings before the Family Court shall be governed by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), unless otherwise provided.

3. Order III Rule 1 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

This rule permits a party to appear in court either in person or through a recognized agent or pleader, subject to court approval.

4. Order VI Rules 14 and 15 – CPC

These relate to the signing and verification of pleadings, which may be done by the party or any person duly authorized by them, including a Power of Attorney holder.

Judicial Interpretation

1. Harshada Bharat Deshmukh v. Bharat Appasaheb Deshmukh

• Citation: MANU/MH/0602/2018 : AIR 2018 Bom 148
• The Bombay High Court clarified that Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act does not override or abrogate the applicability of Order III and VI of the CPC.
• Key Observation: “Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act does not contain any provision abrogating the power of a power of attorney holder under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the procedure under Order III and Order VI is applicable.“
  (Para 22)
• The court held that representation by a PoA holder is legally permissible in divorce by mutual consent, provided that the consent is genuine, and the PoA is validly executed.

---

2. Karnataka High Court – M.F.A. No. 4453 of 2020 (FC)

• In this case, the Karnataka High Court emphasized that mutual consent must be free and unequivocal. While it did not object per se to representation through PoA, it stressed that the court must be satisfied that:
  • The PoA holder is duly authorized;
  • The represented party fully understands and consents to the divorce;
  • The presence of the parties through video conferencing may also be considered to verify consent.

This judgment reflects a pragmatic approach, balancing procedural flexibility with the substantive requirement of mutual consent.

Conditions and Precautions for Valid PoA Representation

To ensure that representation via PoA is legally sound and ethically appropriate, the following conditions must be met:

1. Proper Execution: The Power of Attorney must be duly signed, stamped, and notarized (or apostilled if executed abroad).
2. Specific Authorization: The PoA document must specifically mention authority to file and represent in divorce proceedings.
3. Court Satisfaction: The court must satisfy itself about the genuineness of the consent, often by calling for the party’s appearance via video conferencing.
4. No Coercion or Fraud: Consent must be free from coercion, undue influence, or fraud, as required under Section 23(1)(bb) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Conclusion

Indian courts have acknowledged the practical necessity of permitting Power of Attorney representation in mutual consent divorce proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, this procedural facilitation must not dilute the substantive requirement of real and informed mutual consent.

The combined reading of Order III Rule 1 and Order VI Rules 14 and 15 of the CPC, along with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, legally enables such representation. Judgments like Harshada Bharat Deshmukh and Karnataka HC MFA No. 4453/2020 further affirm this position while stressing the importance of judicial caution and verification.

Thus, Power of Attorney can validly represent a party in mutual consent divorce proceedings, but only when the representation is authentic, verified, and does not undermine the core requirement of mutual, informed, and voluntary consent.