BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE.

M.C 6342/2019

Between

Sri Cheruvu Vineeth Kumar Reddy……… Petitioner

And

Smt Babu Reddy, Yeshaswini Reddy Respondent

OBJECTION BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICATION FILED

BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER III RULE 2 R/W SECTION 151
CPC.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BY RESPONDENT:

1. That at the outset all statements, contentions and pleadings in the

Application and Affidavit are denied as false and incorrect. That the
petitioner is guilty of Suppressio veri and Suggestio falsi. It is submitted
that in the instant petition, the Petitioner has deliberately concealed
various relevant and material facts from this Hon’ble Court. It is pertinent
to mention that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right
to approach the court and such a litigant can be summarily thrown out at
any stage of the litigation. The act on the part of the petitioner is nothing
but a fraud with the design of securing a favorable order. It is submitted
that the Petitioner committed an act of deception to claim the relief as
mentioned therein the present petition.
2. That the present petition is bad in law as well as on facts and thus
deserves to be dismissed in limine.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has not mentioned about the details
about Age, Address of the Special power of Attorney Holder in the
Application. The Petitioner has failed to explain the relationship between
 the Petitioner and special powder of attorney holder for giving authority
to SPA to conduct the case on his behalf.

4. The Special power of attorney has failed to understand the case filed by
the Petitioner which is a Paramount requirement. The petitioner has filed
the above said petition under section 12 of The Hindu Marriage act
seeking this Hon’ble court to declare the marriage between the Petition
and the Respondent as Null and Void. Whereas the SPA as Sworn the
Affidavit in support of Applicant under Order III rule 2 that the said
petition is filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. This make it crystal
clear that the SPA is not well conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case, hence if said application is allowed there will be great
injustice.

5. In fact, the Vakalath is signed by the SPA and none of the papers are
Signed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was supposed to sign the
Vakalath, identify his signature before Indian Embassy which the
Petitioner has failed to do so. Hence the petition filed by the Petitioner is
bad by law.

6. It is submitted that on record it shows that the Special power of attorney

was registered on 23/10/2019 at Chintamani Sub Registrar office. But the
Respondent herein is pretty much sure that petitioner was not present in
India at that time.

7. that a power of attorney cannot depose for the principal in respect of the
matter which only the principal can have a knowledge and in respect of
which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.

8. Smt. Shanta Meena Vs. Smt. Kulshree & Ors. [2011(2) DNJ (Raj.) 558]
In case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), the Apex Court had the
occasion to examine the legislative intent as envisaged
under Order 3 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. While
interpreting Order 3 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the Court has made following
observations in Para 13 of the said verdict:

9. Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney
to "act" on behalf of the principal. In our view the word "acts" employed
in Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, confines only in respect of "acts" done by
the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument.
The term "acts" would not include deposing in place and instead of the
principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some
"acts" in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in
respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done
by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the
principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a
personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be
cross- examined.

WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that this Hon`ble

court be pleased to dismiss the petition in the interest of
justice and equity.

Advocate for the Respondent Respondent

VERIFICATION

I the deponent do hereby declare that what is stated above

is true and correct to the best of knowledge and belief and
information.

Bangalore
Date Respondent