Mcd Vs. Krishna Sharma and anr.

.....of india in uk under section 3(2) of the diplomatic and consular officers (oaths and fees) act, 1947 under which the documents do not require any further evidence.[para 3] if both the parties, by way of affidavits or through counsel, state that they are married, and are able to produce proof of the marriage and that they have been living separately and have not been able to live together for the prescribed period, then there can be no reason as to why the court should not record its satisfaction as envisaged under section 13-b(2) of hindu marriage act, despite the fact that parties had not appeared in person and pass a decree for divorce.[para 6] where the parties are living far away from the jurisdiction of the court competent to dissolve the marriage, the parties after filing their affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf. attorney is competent to act on behalf of the principal on the basis of power of attorney executed by the principal. the courts have been allowing attorneys to file the petition, to withdraw the petition, to carry on proceedings in the court on behalf of their principal in all other cases. the attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as per instructions of their principle. the court can take necessary precautions to prevent frauds being perpetuated on it but unless the court smells some kind of fraud being played with it, the court should normally recognize the act of the attorneys. i therefore allow this petition. the order of the trial court insisting on the personal appearance of the parties is set aside.[para 8] - 4. it is not in dispute that in, view of the findings recorded by the labour court that all such conditions were satisfied by the respondent no......put in requisite period of three years of service and worked on the post of a-grade staff nurse.4. it is not in dispute that in, view of the findings recorded by the labour court that all such conditions were satisfied by the respondent no. 1/workman. the petitioner management's witnesses had not appeared for their cross-examination and accordingly their evidence was rightly not taken into account. the respondent no. 1's averments and testimony of her fulfilling the criteria of 3 years service and working on the post of a-grade staff nurse stood unrebutted and were believed by the labour court in arriving at its findings. the labour court in fact relied upon the evidence of mw1 harish to hold that respondent no. 1 had worked against the post of 'a' grade/13 grade staff nurse at balak ram hospital but he admitted that all posts of nurses in balak ram hospital were 'a' grade staff nurses' post. it was also found as per the record that the respondent no. 1 had been appointed as an auxiliary nurse midwife on 28th february, 1975 and had completed 3 years of service and had remained posted as 'a' grade staff nurse from 20th february, 1984 to december, 1988. in view of the aforesaid factors and the findings of fact in favor of the respondent no. 1, no error can be found in the impugned award and accordingly no interference is called for with the award in the writ jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india.5. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. consequently the interim order dated 31st january, 2002 stands vacated.