Is a party to a proceeding before the family Court entitled to apply for a copy of the order through his counsel when he is unable to appear before the court personally to apply for and receive such a copy? Does sec. 13 of the Family Courts Act or Rule 9 of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rule take away such an option of a party to a proceeding before the family court? These are the interesting questions that some up for consideration in this writ petition.

2. This is the second time the petitioner is coming before this Court Against him, his wife has secured an order dissolving the marriage as per an exparte order passed in O.P. No. 124/05. He applied for a certified copy through his counsel. That application was returned with an endorsement that the party must apply directly for the certified copy’, The petitioner is employed abroad. He could not come to India to personally apply for a copy So, he filed W.P.(c) No. 2725/06 before this court to direct the family court to issue a copy to him through his counsel, W.P.(c) No. 2725/06 was disposed of directing the family court to consider the application and pass a speaking order.

3. Accordingly, the application was re-presented and Ext.P1 order has been Passed wherein the court below placing reliance on Sec. 13 of the Family Courts Act and Rule 9 of the Family Courts (procedure) Rules has again returned the application for proper personal presentation by the petitioner.

4. On the face of it the procedure adopted by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not appear to me to be correct, fair and just. The proceedings before the family Court is already over. All that the petitioner wants is the issue of a copy of the order. Under Rule 10 of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, a party is entitled to a free copy of the order Under Rule 11 of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules read with Rule 239 of the Rules of Practice, a party is entitled to apply for a copy of an order through his counsel. To insist that a party employed abroad must come all the way to India to apply for and receive a copy of the order certainly appeals to me to be not fair proper or just.

5. I shall now consider whether the law invariably mandates and demands such a course. If such insistence is not there, certainly a direction to the family Court to issue the copy must follow as such a direction appears to be fair and just.

6. Sec. 13 of the Family Courts Act is in this context, relevant and I extract the same below.

“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 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 amices curiae”

Every statutory provision has a laudable motive behind it Application 0f the Statutory provision without understanding and comprehending the rationale behind the statutory provision would not be proper. Sec.13 of the Family Courts Act only says that no party to a suit or proceeding before the Family Court shall be entitled, as of right to be represented by a legal practitioner. Evidently, this stipulation has reasons and principles backing the same. In a proceedings before the Family Court, the court is to make all attempts to conciliate and settle the dispute. Nor that such presence must in every case be counter productive to the journey to the destination of a settlement. But there may be cases in which such presence of a third party to the matrimonial relationship other than presiding Officer/Conciliator may affect a possible harmonious settlement. That is why the law only insisted that no party to a suit or proceedings before the Family Court shall be entitled as of right to represented by a legal practitioner.

7. It would appear that there is one more strong reason. In a matrimonial p