The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 prohibits the representation of an advocate in a proceeding before the Family Court, except in cases where the court deems it necessary in the interest of justice to seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curiae.

PRASENJIT MANDAL, J.

1. THIS application is at the instance of the husband and is directed against the order no.3 dated February 26, 2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge-in-Charge, Family Court, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No.4 of 2009.

2. THE husband filed the said suit for a decree of divorce against the opposite party before the learned Family Judge at Pune under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. That suit was subsequently transferred to the Family Court at Calcutta and renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No.4 of 2009. At present, the petitioner is posted at the college of Military Engineering, Pune and for that reason, he filed the said suit at Pune. Since, it was difficult for the opposite party to attend the Court at Pune, she filed an application before the Honble Apex Court for transfer and accordingly, the said suit was transferred to the Family Court at Calcutta. THE petitioner contends that it is very difficult for him to leave from his office on a regular basis to attend the Court at Calcutta and for that reason, he wanted to be represented by a learned Advocate. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

The question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 at Pune and thereafter, it was transferred to Calcutta at the instance of the wife/opposite party. Now, the question is whether the contention of the husband that since he is not in a position to get leave on regular basis to attend the Court, he should be permitted to be represented by a learned Advocate before the Family Court at Calcutta, should be entertained. In order to appreciate the situation, I am to consider the relevant provision of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which lays down as follows:- 13. The right to Legal Representative - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no party to a suit or proceeding before a Family Court shall be entitled, as of right, to be represented by a legal practitioner; Provided that if the Family Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curiae.

3. THEREFORE, the said Section of the Act of 1984 is very much clear that representation of an advocate is totally prohibited in a proceeding before the Family Court but if the Court thinks that the assistance of a legal practitioner is necessary, he may appoint so as amicus curiae and not as an advocate to any party under any circumstances. Thus, I find that the said provision is a clear bar for appointment of an advocate to represent the husband on the ground that he has been working at Pune.

4. THUS, I find that the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for appointment of an advocate on behalf of the husband. The Court has also assigned reasons in support of its findings and if I say the same, it will be a nothing but a repetition of the same. The Trial Court is perfectly justified in rejecting the prayer for appointment of an advocate on behalf of the husband. So, there is no ground for interference. The learned Trial Judge has not failed to exercise his jurisdiction. This application is, therefore, meritless. It is dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.