MAYANK JAIGOPAL GUPTA Vs. MRS. NEHA MAYANK GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, having regard to the challenge raised in the above Petition made returnable forthwith and heard. The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai, by which order, the application Exh. 11 filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected.

(2.) It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details considering the narrow controversy involved. The Respondent herein has filed Marriage Petition No. A264 of 2014 for annulment of the marriage between her and the Petitioner herein which took place on 01.08.2013. The annulment of the marriage is sought inter alia on the grounds mentioned in the said Marriage Petition. For the purposes of adjudication of the instant Petition, it is not necessary to go into the said aspect. The Petitioner herein claims to be a citizen of Switzerland and is residing in Geneva. There is no dispute about the fact that a copy of the said Marriage Petition was served upon the Petitioner. It seems that after the copy was served the Respondent addressed a letter to the Family Court that he be furnished with a copy of the Marriage Petition translated in French as per the Geneva Convention. Be that as it may, the Marriage Petition was proceeded with and in view of the fact that the Respondent did not appear in the matter. The Learned Judge of the Family Court it seems has passed an order to proceed an ex parte against the Petitioner on 10th October, 2015 (as per the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent). The Petitioner filed the instant application Exh. 11 for being permitted to be represented by advocate. It is required to be noted that the Respondent herein is represented by a lawyer after permission was granted to her in that behalf. In the said application the Petitioner has stated that he does not have adequate legal knowledge and that there is possibility of question of law arising and that he would not be in a position to conduct the said case on his own adequately. It is therefore prayed that he may be permitted to appoint the advocates mentioned in the said application. The said application Exh. 11 is dated 08.12.2011 which was affirmed before the concerned authority in Geneva and sent back and thereafter filed on 23.12.2015 in the Family Court. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court i.e. Learned Judge of the Family Court who has endorsed on the same which endorsement is to the following effect "Respondent absent hence rejected". It is the said order which is taken exception to by way of the above Petition. The Petitioner vide clause (b) seeks relief that the written statement of the Petitioner be taken on record.

(3.) However, insofar as the impugned order is concerned, it was the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Bagaria that since the Respondent wife is represented by an advocate, the application filed by the Petitioner was required to be allowed as obviously the Petitioner is not competent to conduct the matter especially when the Respondent is represented by advocate. The Learned Counsel sought to place reliance on Rule 37 of the Family Court Rules under which such permission according to him can be granted.