Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Impugning the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 16-4-2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Raigarh in Criminal MJC No. F-41/2014, the petitioner/husband has filed this revision under Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984') by which his application under Section 13 of the Act of 1984 has been rejected by the said Court.

2. Imperative facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are as under:--

"(2.1) In an application for enhancement of the amount of maintenance allowance by the respondent herein, the Family Court permitted the respondent herein to take the assistance of legal expert as amicus curiae leading to filing of application under Section 13 of the Act of 1984 by the petitioner herein stating inter alia that the petitioner be permitted to take the assistance of legal expert as amicus curiae, as he has no legal knowledge to conduct the proceeding. The Family Court by its impugned order rejected the application holding inter alia that examination and cross-examination of the respondent has already been concluded and, therefore, the application is substance-less. Against the said order, this revision has been filed by the petitioner/husband."

3. Mr. Pradeep Saksena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the Family Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking assistance of legal expert as amicus curiae, as Section 13 of the Act of 1984 does not absolutely bar the representation of Advocate(s) to appear on behalf of the parties, though the party to such proceeding is not entitled "as of right" to be represented by legal practitioner. He would further submit that the Family Court has already permitted the respondent/wife to be represented by a legal expert as amicus curiae and, therefore, the Family Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to take the assistance of legal expert as amicus curiae as such, the order be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to take the assistance of legal expert as amicus curiae.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the rival submissions made herein.

5. In order to consider the plea raised, it would be appropriate to notice Section 13 of the Act of 1984 which provides as under:--

"13. Right to legal representation-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"

6. Dictionary meaning of the word 'right' in the context in which it is used in Section 13of the Act of 1984, is as under:--

"Chambers: just or legal claim; what one has a just claim to.

Webster's : Third New international Dictionary : Something to which one has just claim; a power or privilege vested in a person by the law to demand action or forbearance at the hands of another; a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will do or will not do a given act; a capacity or privilege the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law.

Wharton's Law Lexicon : It is a liberty of doing or possessing something consistently with law.

The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar : A lawful title or claim to anything, property, prerogative privilege."

7. The expression "as of right" used in Section 13 of the Act of 1984 also finds place in Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act. It is well known principle of interpretation of statutes that use of same words in similar connection in a later statute gives rise to a presumption that they are intended to convey the same meaning as in the earlier statute. When once certain words in an Act of Parliament have received a judicial construction and the Legislature has repeated them, the Legi