PRAFULLABEN DHIRUBHAIKANJIYA Vs. DHIRUBHAI KACHRABHAI KANJIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the impugned order, the court below granted interim maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.300/= p.m. in the suit filed by her for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The petitioner filed the suit in the court below as an indigent person. It is really shocking and astonishing that the learned trial court has not taken care of the provisions of Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. When a woman is entitled for free legal aid, I fail to see why this application is still pending. On the very first day, when this application has been placed before the court, the court should have immediately taken care and seen that the petitioner has been granted free legal aid and the requisite court fees etc. are paid on the suit and the advocate is also provided or where the advocate appear in the application has given undertaking that he will not charge any fees from her, he should have been permitted. This shows how the court below have been ignorant of these beneficial piece of legislation. This class of litigants are subjected to manifold difficulties and sufferings because of the fact that they are not knowing law and that the court is totally ignorant of this basic beneficial piece of legislation.

(2.) The courts should have been very careful to see that this class of litigant is not subjected to harassment, inconvenience and hardship. Because of this ignorance of this lady, she has permitted her advocate to file the suit as an indigent person and which results in delay in proceedings. Moreover, it unnecessarily consumes court's valuable time also in a matter where otherwise it was not called for. The advocate who is appearing for the petitioner has also shown total and scant disregard to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. He should have advised this litigant to go to the Legal Services Authority or Committee, as the case may be, and if it would have been advised so, she would not have filed the suit as an indigent person. It is equally the duty of the advocates to see that this class of litigant is made known of this right. Recipient of these benefits invariably are being made known of these by the advocates as well as the courts.

(3.) The courts should be very very careful and cautious in dealing with the matter of such class of litigants. When the matter is presented before him, immediately he has to take all the care so that this class of litigant is not harassed in any way in the proceedings and they get appropriate free legal services. It is also the duty of the courts to see that where the matter is filed through the advocate, there is no exploitation of this class of litigants. It has to be made known to that litigant that she is entitled for free legal services and meaning thereof. The advocate is also to be informed that if he is ready to provide free legal aid to the litigants, it is a different matter, but where he declines to provide free legal services, the advocate may be engaged through legal aid committee. However, where the litigant of this category does not want free legal aid, the matter may be different and in that case also, the court has to take all the care that this class of litigant may not be exploited.