.....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] - 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that petitioner shall not leave india without prior permission of the trial court;orders.k. agarwal, j.1. by this petition under section 439, cr.p.c. read with section 37, ndps act, petitioner is seeking bail in case fir no. 119/2003 under sections 15/61/85, ndps act, p.s. vasant kunj. prosecution allegations, in brief, are that petitioner was found standing near contessa car bearing registration no. dlicf 6343 along with his co-brother ruppi. ruppi had opened the dicky of the car from where 170 kgs. of poppy straw was recovered. learned app for the state, strongly opposing the bail application, contended that ruppi is the co-brother of the petitioner; his disclosure statement reveals that they had jointly brought the poppy straw.2. i have considered the rival contentions. there is nothing on record to indicate that petitioner was ever in possession of the poppy straw or that he knew or had reason to believe that poppy straw was being carried in the dicky of the car, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that petitioner shall not leave india without prior permission of the trial court; he shall surrender his passport, if any, and shall not tamper with the evidence.3. petition stands disposed of. any observation made herein would not affect the merits of the case at any stage.dusty.