Point of Law: Family Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curiae. Reading of the Section 13 itself indicates that though a legal practitioner as of right cannot appear for a party. Respondent has refuted the claim of the appellant that multiple lawyers are appearing in the proceeding. We have no reason to disbelieve her submission. There is no complete bar on engaging a legal practitioner. It is a matter of discretion for the Court to permit engaging of a legal practitioner which the Family Court in the facts of this case has thought fit.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. The appellant Abhishek Kumar Mishra, party-in-person was the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by an oral judgment dated 06.04.2021 disposed of the petition of the appellant directing the Family Court, Vadodara, to decide the main application for custody being CMA – DC/29 of 2021 in a time-bound schedule. The learned Single Judge directed the Family Court, Vadodara, to decide the Custody Application within three weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order.

This direction has not found favour with the appellant, hence the appeal.

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The appellant and the respondent Ankita were married on 24.01.2011. Two daughters named Shagun and Shubh were born out of the wedlock. Due to marital discord, it appears that the respondent left the matrimonial home with the daughters. The appellant-petitioner initially filed Application No.GW33/2020 before the Family Court, Gurugram for obtaining custody of two daughters. He approached the Supreme Court which by an order dated 09.03.2021 directed the Family Court to decide the application filed by the petitioner within three weeks. It further directed the Station House Officer of the jurisdictional police station at Vadodara to give an opportunity to the petitioner to meet and talk to the children for at least two hours on 12.03.2021. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of.

2.2 By an order dated 23.03.2021, the Court at Gurugram transferred the application filed under the Guardian and Wards Act to the Court at Vadodara.

2.3 The appellant-petitioner filed Civil Misc. Application No.29 of 2021 praying for interim custody of the daughters. The Family Court at Vadodara partly allowed the application and directed the opponent-mother to bring the daughters Shagun and Shubh to the Family Court on the 3rd working Saturday of each month so that the appellant could meet his minor daughters in the Court premises. This order was passed on 03.04.2021.

3. This order partly allowing the application prompted the appellant-petitioner to approach this Court by way of the petition so filed with the prayers as quoted by the learned Single Judge in his order under challenge. For the sake of brevity, para 4 of the order of the learned Single Judge wherein reliefs therein are set out, is reproduced hereunder:

“4. The party-in-person Abhishek Mishra has briefly stated that even after the directions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 09.03.2021 in SLP (C) 3001 of 2021 to decide the application for custody within three weeks without fail. The competent court i.e. to say Vadodara Family Court, has not decided the issue in time and therefore, he has approached this Court with the following prayers.

“Ex-parte interim orders be passed:

a. Stay all proceedings at Family Court Vadodara in the matter of CMA DC/29/ of 2021.

b. Grant physical visitation to petitioner as per order of Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) 3001 of 2021.

c. Grant exemption of notarizing this petition and hear the matter on Very Urgent basis.

Final relief :

a. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the writ Mandamus and/or in nature of any other writ directing Respondent 1, Family Court judge to decide the application of custody and visitation in 2 days, which is in line with order of Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) 3001 of 2021.

b. Direct the respondent no.1 to discharge all lawyers appointed by all parties as per section 13 of Family Courts act and appoint an independent and unrelated Amicus Curiae from Legal Aid Department if need be.

c. Direct the respondent no.1 to not reverse it’s own order which violated the principle of 'Functus Officio' and continue case from Ex-parte evidence stage of petitioner set since 13th August, 2020.

d. Direct the respondent no.1 to adhere to prescribed law of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC and not grant illegal gains to respondent no.2 by allowing to file written statement at the final stages of case.

e. Dir