1.If you were physically present for filing the Joint Petition , you need not appear before court for giving evidence. Cheif affidavit can be filed by before the court. The below mentioned Citation of Kerala HC may help you.
2. But if you represented through GPA at the time of filing the 13B , I am not fully sure whether court will accept your cheif affidavit. Anyway please send your cheif affidavit attested from the embassy to your Advocate along with this citation.(Some times, being a ruling of another state, the court need not appreciate it).
2010 (3) KLT 804
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Basant & Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C. Hari Rani
Saji T. Varghese v. State of Kerala
W.P. (C) No.27092 of 2009
Decided on 22nd February, 2010
Divorce Act 1869, S. 10A - Hindu Marriage Act 1955, S. 13B - Special Marriage Act 1954, S. 28 -- Personal presence of applicants/spouses in the application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent need not unnecessarily and ordinarily be insisted -- Chief affidavits can be filed to state their case on oath instead of tendering evidence personally.
Summary
Questions raised are:
(i) Whether ritualistic insistence on personal presence of parties need be made by a Court in an application for divorce by mutual consent ?
(ii) Whether the waiting period of six months stipulated under S.10A of the Divorce Act can be waived ?
Findings and Observations:
(i) Waiting period after filing joint petition for divoce under S.10A of Indian Divorce Act, S.13B of Hindu Marriage Act and S.28 of the Special Marriage Act cannot be waived in view of the decision reported in 2010 (2) KLT 459.
(ii) After the period of waiting a second motion need only be made and personal presence of the spouses need not be insisted.
(iii) Such second motion can be made by the appearing counsel.
(iv) Parties can state their case through Chief Affidavit.
(v) Insistence on personal presence of parties, or conselling/conciliation need not be made in a joint petition or divorce on the ground of mutual consent if the court is satisfied about its genuinity.
Held: Personal presence of such applicants/spouses in the application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent need not be unnecessarily insisted by the Court. It is submitted that the parties find it difficult to personally appear after the period of waiting. After the period of waiting, a second motion need only be made and personal presence of the spouses need not be insisted. The learned counsel can make such second motion on their behalf. Their presence need not also be insisted to tender evidence. Ordinarily chief affidavits can be filed by them to state their case on oath. Hence the personal presence of the parties need not ordinarily be insisted. (para. 6)
Divorce Ac 1869, S. 10A - Hindu Marriage Act 1955, S. 13B - Special Marriage Act 1954, S. 28 -- If the Court is satisfied about the genuineness of the joint application for divorce on mutual consent, personal presence of the parties for conciliation/counselling need not be insisted.
In the instant case, conciliation has already taken place, it is submitted. Even otherwise, ritualistic insistence on personal presence of the parties for conciliation/counselling need not be made by a Court in a joint application for divorce on the ground of mutual consent, if the Court is otherwise satisfied about the genuineness of the application. (para. 6)
N. Asok Kumar, Roy Philip, R. Sunil Kumar, M.R. Rajesh,
S. Subhash Chand, Shoby K. Francis & Sandhya Raju For Petitioners
G. Shrikumar As Amicus Curiae
JUDGMENT
R. Basant, J.
Can the waiting period after filing the joint petition for divorce under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, S.10A of the Indian Divorce Act and S.28 of the Special Marriage Act be waived by the Court suo motu or on the application of both parties?
2. This question arose for consideration in various petitions and we posted all such cases together for hearing. Sri.G.Shrikumar, Advocate, has rendered assistance as amicus curiae for the Court. We have had the advantage of hearing Advocates M/s S. Subash Chand. Sandhya Raju, M.R. Rajesh, R. Sunilkumar, Shoby K. Francis and others on the question.
3. We have answered that question in Mat. Appeal No. 633/08 today [Ed.Note : Please refer 2010 (2) KLT 459]. The finding on that question is extracted below:
“We may, in these circumstances summarise the law and state that not only conditions A, B, C and D below; but condition E below also are mandatory requirements that must all co-exist before the Court's power under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, S.10A of the Divorce Act and S.28 of the Special Marriage Act to pass the decree for dissolution on the basis of a joint application for divorce on mutual consent is invoked:
A. Solemnisation of marriage.
B. The mutual agreement of the spouses that the marriage should be dissolved.
C. That the spouses have been living separately for the specified period of one year/two years prior to the presentation of the application.
D. They have not been able to live together during this period; and
E. Minimum period of six months and maximum period of 18 months has elapsed from the date on which the application for divorce under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and S.10A of the Divorce Act is filed and the spouses have made the second motion for dissolution thereafter.”
4. Having so understood the law, we look at the facts in this case. The parties are Christians. They both employed abroad. Their marriage was solemnized on 18.9.04. They started separate residence with effect from 7.6.09. In December, 2009 they applied for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under S.10Aof the Divorce Act. That application stands dismissed by the impugned order - Ext. P3. The petitioners pray that the impugned order may be set aside and the period of waiting may be dispensed with.
5. In the light of the law that we have already ascertained, which we have extracted above, the prayer to dispense with the period of six months under S.10A of the Divorce Act is found to be without any merit. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
6. We may hasten to observe that the personal presence of such applicants/spouses in the application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent need not be unnecessarily insisted by the Court. It is submitted that the parties find it difficult to personally appear after the period of waiting. After the period of waiting, a second motion need only be made and personal presence of the spouses need not be insisted. The learned counsel can make such second motion on their behalf. Their presence need not also be insisted to tender evidence. Ordinarily chief affidavits can be filed by them to state their case on oath. Hence the personal presence of the parties need not ordinarily be insisted. In the instant case, conciliation has already taken place, it is submitted. Even otherwise, ritualistic insistence on personal presence of the parties for conciliation/counselling need not be made by a Court in a joint application for divorce on the ground of mutual consent, if the Court is otherwise satisfied about the genuineness of the application.
