SUKANT BHATTACHARYA Vs. ISHITA BHATTACHARYA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition the petitioner has made challenge to the order dtd. 9/12/2025 (Annexure P-17) and order dtd. 13/1/2026 (Annexure P- 1) whereby the Family Court has directed to provide Hindi translated copies of the relevant pleadings.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that other party is the resident of Kolkata and her mother tongue is not Hindi and she is more conversant in English than Hindi despite which the Family Court has directed to provide translated copies of pleadings in Hindi. It is contended that initially in the order Annexure P-17 dtd. 9/12/2005 there was nothing mentioned that the the counsel does not know English but later on in the order sheet dtd. 13/1/2026 counsel orally stated before the Family Court that he is a trial Court counsel and if he is granted Hindi translated version then that would be appropriate for him to reply to the application and pleadings.

(3.) It is contended that the counsel never stated that he is not conversant with English language and the party does not say that it is not conversant with the English language nor the counsel has categorically stated that he is not conversant with English Language and the pleadings in the present case run into hundreds of pages and such an order would only hamper speedy progress of the case and such a plea was taken only to trouble the present petitioner in the litigation and it was a misuse of process of law. Reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi reported in 1996 MPLJ 689 that if the demand is not genuine but is made merely to drag the litigation then the Court can reject such frivolous application.