Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Mayank Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri B. N. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) Petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 25th August, 2005, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar before whom a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (In short 'the Act') was pending in which the petitioner was defendant. During the pendency of the petition under Section 12 of 'the Act' before the Family Court, the plaintiff-respondent in this petition filed an application 43 C-2 with the prayer that in view of the provision of Section 13 of "the Act' the representation by Advocates may be prohibited. The Court below has passed the order allowing the aforesaid application 43 C-2 filed by the respondent-plaintiff and prohibited the representation of the Advocates for any party. The Court below has also observed that there is also a direction of High Court that the suit itself may be decided by 20th October, 2005 and the defendant-petitioner in this way trying to delay the disposal of the suit.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant relied upon decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1992 AWC, 395 - Bansidhar v. Smt. Seema, wherein the Division Bench observed that "once the parties are allowed to be represented through Advocates, they cannot be restrained from representation of their case in the Family Court by Advocates" The Division Bench further observed that "in our opinion, if the Family Court hears anyone other than a party, as amicus cruiae or as legal expert, it must permit a party to be represented by a legal practitioner if the said party makes a request to that effect, The scheme of the Act does not show that there is any complete prohibition on representation by a legal practitioner before the Family Courts.";