IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA th ON THE 7 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 5991 of 2024 AARTI KORI Versus ASHOK KUMAR KORI Appearance:

Shri Piyush Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Satyam Chansoriya, learned counsel for the respondent through VC along with Shri Subhash Panchal, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2024, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for change of the advocate under section 13 of the Family Courts Act read with Rule 14 of MP Family Court Rules, 2002 has been rejected. The petitioner has filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance against the respondent. The petitioner was granted permission earlier to be represented by counsel and one Ranjeet Singh Hada was allowed to represent the petitioner.

On 23.09.2024, NOC was given by the said counsel. Thereafter, on

30.09.2024 an application was filed for change of counsel and permission was sought to be represented through one Anurag Parashar. His Vakalatnama was also filed in the presence of the petitioner and the same was accepted by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH the court. However, the said application was rejected by the court on the ground that the petitioner was already granted permission to be represented through a legal practitioner on earlier occasion and the application for change of the counsel was filed in the absence of personal presence of the petitioner. The right of evidence of the petitioner was closed and the matter was taken up in the afternoon for recording the evidence of the respondent.

Thereafter, the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent PW No.1 and 2. The counsel for the petitioner did not cross-examine them and sought adjournment on the ground that the certified copies of the documents were not available and the petitioner was not keeping well on the said date. However, one more opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses was granted and the matter was fixed on 22.10.2024. Thereafter, the petition has been filed challenging the said order by which the prayer for change of the counsel was rejected and the right of adducing the evidence has been closed. The case is still pending for evidence of respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a criminal revision no.5897/2023 which is still pending. He has also filed an application for consolidation of the present case with the said criminal revision. It is further argued that the petitioner has been given as many as 11 opportunities but the counsel for the petitioner did not chose to cross-examine the witnesses. There is no illegality in the order.

The petitioner is delaying the trial.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH So far the objection of the respondent that the present petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has filed a criminal revision no.5897/2023 has no merit. The said revision is filed being aggrieved by the order of interim maintenance being insufficient and inappropriate. The present petition is filed on different cause of action, where the prayer of the petitioner to change the counsel and her right to adduce evidence has been closed.

In view of the aforesaid, the application of the respondent for consolidating the present petition along with criminal revision no.5897/2023 is dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner was granted permission to be represented by a legal practitioner earlier in the exercise of powers under section 13 of the Act, 1984 read with rule 14 of the Family Court Rules. However, NOC was granted by the said counsel on 23.09.2024. Vakalatnama was filed in the presence of the petitioner