MANJU Vs. RAMAVTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 627/2003 is directed against the order dated 18-1-2003 passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, in case No. 39/2002 whereby an application of the appellant filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected.

(2.) ANOTHER Appeal No. 628/2003 has been directed against the order dated 18-1-2003, passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, in Execution Case No. 5/2001 directing the appellant (wife) to hand-over the custody of the child to the respondent (husband) in execution of decree dated 26-7-1999.

(3.) THE main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that since the matter relates to the custody of the child and in the Family Court generally the advocates do not appear on behalf of the parties and as such in the facts and circumstances of the case when the appellant had shown sufficient reason for her inability to appear in the Court on account of having no knowledge of passing of decree, and was prevented on account of bonafide grounds, the Court should have accepted the application of the appellant in the interest of justice.