The Kerala High Court recently ruled that spouses cannot file writ petitions on behalf of the other without a power of attorney specifically authorising them to do so.
Justice CS Dias passed the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by a Malappuram-based woman (petitioner) who had filed a writ petition on behalf of her NRI-husband.
She sought a correction of the manner in which her husband's property was classified by the State authorities. She had filed the writ petition instead of her husband, since her husband was working abroad and could not be in India to regularly pursue the legal proceedings.
However, the High Court questioned the wife's locus standi (legal standing) to file such a writ petition on behalf of her husband since she was neither the owner of the property nor held a power of attorney executed by her husband in favour of her.
The Judge explained that the right to sue under Article 226 of the Constitution (writ petitions) ordinarily lies with the person whose legal right has been infringed and not with a relative or spouse, unless they have been specifically authorised.
"Rule 145 (of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971) unequivocally mandates that the writ petitions filed under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution have to be filed by the petitioner or his duly authorised Advocate... There is no provision under the Rules enabling a non-party spouse to file a writ petition on behalf of a party spouse, without a duly executed power of attorney, in the status of an agent," the Court held.
The case concerned the classification of certain land as 'wetland' under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The petitioner's husband was the co-owner of 12.48 acres of land in Tirur, Malappuram. According to the petition, the land was a dry land but was mistakenly included as a 'wetland' in the data bank prepared under the 2008 Act.
To rectify this alleged error, the woman's husband and other co-owners moved an application before the Sub-Collector, Tirur. However, their application was eventually rejected.
Aggrieved by this, the woman filed a writ petition before the High Court on behalf of her husband.
Her counsel argued that she had the legal standing to file such a plea on behalf of her husband even without a power of attorney. In this regard, the counsel referred to Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court, however, noted that this provision merely enables a spouse to be a competent witness in a proceeding involving the other spouse.
The Court further explained that under Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), only the recognised agents and pleaders were permitted to act on behalf of litigants. It clarified that such recognised agents included those who held a valid power of attorney executed in their favour.
The Court found that the woman had not produced any document to show she was so authorised to represent her husband, apart from aclaim that she was managing the estate in his absence.
It proceeded to dismiss her writ petition, but clarified that she can re-approach the Court in the matter if her husband executes a power of attorney in her favour.
The petitioner was represented by advocates CM Mohammed Iquabal, P Abdul Nishad, Istinaf Abdullah, Thasneem AP, Dhilna Dileep, Surya SR, and Arshid MS.
Government pleader Deepa V appeared for the State.
[Read Judgment]