SUCHITRA SACHINDRA SAHOO Vs. BASANTI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

(2.) In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr .P.C. interim maintenance at Rs.200/- per month was granted by the learned Magistrate when a proceeding was pending before him. An application was filed before learned Magistrate by appellant to pay the arrears of Rs.2,000/- on 12.3.1991 which was granted. At that stage proceeding has been transferred to Family Court. Before the Family Court, an application was filed by appellant for granting time on the ground that he is ill. Since the appellant was not present to press the petition, the same was rejected by the Family Court. On rejection of application nonbailable warrant of arrest and distress warrant are directed to be issued against appellant and his bailor. This is grievance of the appellant.

(3.) Under Section 13 of the Act, right of parties to be represented by the legal practioner is taken away. However, if Family Court considers it to be necessary in the interest of justice it may seek assistance of legal expert as amicus curie. In this situation when appellant claims to be ill, there is no scope for his appearing to move the petition. There is no scope for a party to be represented by a Lawyer to move the petition. There is no finding that assertion in petition that is not correct. No reason has been given in the order why the Family Court is not satisfied that a Lawyer should be engaged amicus curie. In such circumstances, on this short ground the impugned order is vu In era b le.