ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent. Their marriage took place on 14-08-2006. At present, the Petitioner is residing in California, USA. Through his General Power of Attorney holder Mr. Anand Ramesh, he filed O.P. under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the Respondent in the Family Court, Secunderabad. 2. Petitioner also filed an application being I.A. S.R. No. 2430 of 2010 under Sections 8, 9, 11 and 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to exempt him from the requirement of personal appearance. He pleaded that on account of his being a resident of California, he is unable to attend the Court and that the Family Court may proceed with the matter without insisting on his appearance, particularly, with reference to Section 9 of the Act. The office of the Family Court, Secunderabad raised objections and the I.A. was not numbered. On the insistence of the Petitioner, the matter was placed before the Court and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, it passed an order dated 23-07-2010 directing return of the application. The same is challenged in this revision. 3. Sri Sarosh Bastawala, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the view taken by the Family Court as regards the purport of Section 9 of the Act is untenable in law. He contends that the requirement to make efforts for settlement by the Family Court is only where it is possible to do so, and is not a mandatory step in every case. He submits that on account of the objections raised by the Family Court, hardly there is any progress in the matter and the very purpose of filing the O.P. is defeated. 4. Petitioner approached the Family Court with a prayer to annul the marriage between himself and the Respondent. In addition to that, he prayed for the decree of divorce. It is a different matter whether these two reliefs could have been claimed in one and the same petition. 5. Family Courts are constituted and established, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In addition to that, he prayed for the decree of divorce. It is a different matter whether these two reliefs could have been claimed in one and the same petition. 5. Family Courts are constituted and established, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Having regard to the nature of the adjudication to be undertaken by the Family Courts, viz., settlement of matrimonial and other related disputes between the parties, Parliament prescribed a special procedure to be followed by these Courts. The main object is to bring about settlement of disputes between the parties, by undertaking counselling. It is only when such efforts fail, that the Family Court has to decide the matter, by applying the provisions of the relevant personal law. To relieve the proceedings from the web of complex procedure and intricate arguments, not only a simplified procedure is prescribed but also, appearance of Advocates is discouraged. Unless specific permission is accorded to the party, he or she cannot avail the services of an Advocate in the Family Court. Section 9 of the Act places an obligation upon the Family Court, to explore the possibility by effecting settlement between the parties. The provision reads as under: 9. Duty of Family Court to make efforts for settlement: (1) In every suit or proceeding, endeavour shall be made by the Family Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding and for this purpose a Family Court may, subject to any rules made by the High Court, follow such procedure as it may deem fit. (2) If, in any suit or proceeding, at any stage it appears to the Family Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Family Court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement. (3) The power conferred by Sub-section (2) shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other power of the Family Court to adjourn the proceedings. 6. From this, the importance given to settlement, in preference to adjudication, can be understood. (3) The power conferred by Sub-section (2) shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other power of the Family Court to adjourn the proceedings. 6. From this, the importance given to settlement, in preference to adjudication, can be understood. It is, but natural that a settlement can be effected in a matrimonial matter, only where both the spouses are present before the Court. Howsoever absolute and clear the mandate to a GPA, may be, he cannot be a substitute for the to physical presence of the party concerned. The authorization given to a GPA in matters of this nature is just insufficient, and inadequate for this purpose. 7. It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the steps indicated under Section 9 of the Act can be taken only where it is possible and if the Court is of the view that settlement cannot be effected on account of the absence of one of the parties, there is nothing in law which prohibits the Court from skipping or bye passing the exercise stipulated under Section 9 of the Act and proceed to take up the trial. 8. It is not possible to accept the contention advanced by the leaned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the interpretation placed by him on the provision. The words "where it is possible" qualify, the outcome of the exercise. It is quite possible for one to argue that the duty cast upon the Courts under Section 9 of the Act is absolute and the effort must invariably lead to settlement. It is common that the efforts made by the Courts or by the well-wishers of the spouses to bring about settlement, do not fructify. It is to deal with such contingencies, that the expression "where it is possible to do so" is employed, in the Section. The effect thereof would be that the Court has to make efforts to bring about settlement to the extent it is possible. In other words, if the settlement is not possible, the Court need not find itself in a helpless situation. It can proceed to decide the matter according to law. This is different from saying that the Court need not make such an effort at all. The language of the Section does not support such an approach. 9. In other words, if the settlement is not possible, the Court need not find itself in a helpless situation. It can proceed to decide the matter according to law. This is different from saying that the Court need not make such an effort at all. The language of the Section does not support such an approach. 9. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Komali S. Padukone v. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore 1999 AIR (Kar) 427. That was a case in which the Petitioner therein sought permission to engage an Advocate in a matter, covered by the Act. The Karnataka High Court referred to various provisions of the Act and held that in case the Family Court granted permission to one of the parties to engage an Advocate, it cannot deny such permission to other spouse. There is nothing to suggest in the said judgment that the step contemplated under Section 9 of the Act is not mandatory and it can be dispensed with, in a given case. On other hand, it was suggested that on service of notice on the parties, the Family Court shall endeavour at the beginning itself, to bring about a settlement. That would be possible, obviously, only when the parties are present. 10. The trial Court has referred to the various steps that have taken place in this case, ever since it was presented in the year 2008 and directed that the I.A. be returned. Though it may be difficult and inconvenient for the Petitioner to attend the Court on every date of hearing, he cannot expect adjudication unless he makes himself available at least for the purpose of settlement, contemplated under Section 9 of the Act. 11. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.