PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order No.18 dated July 29, 2011 passed learned Additional Presiding Officer, Family Court No.2 in Interim Application No.4 of 2011 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.218 of 2009.
(2.) THE husband / opposite party herein filed a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.218 of 2009 against the wife / petitioner herein for divorce before the District Judge, Faridabad and the wife is contesting the said matrimonial suit by denying material allegations raised in the suit. Previously, the husband / opposite party herein was posted at Faridabad. At the instance of the wife / petitioner herein, the said matrimonial suit was transferred to Kolkata for disposal. The husband filed another case against the wife before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner and her mother-in-law also stayed there, but, dispute arose amongst them. In that suit, the wife / petitioner herein had to appear, engage lawyer and thus, she had to incur expenses. Since, the dispute arose, the wife / petitioner herein started living in Kolkata and she had to go to Faridabad for attending the Court. In this way, she had to expend huge money. The said suit before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) is still pending. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has wanted Rs.3 lakh as costs for the litigation, Rs.40,000/- per day whenever she would have to appear at Faridabad Court in the said suit. Beside that, in order to attend the Court and to meet the legal expenses, she had claimed Rs.20,000/- per day when the matter is fixed for hearing before the Family Court, Calcutta. Upon hearing both the sides, the application was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that both the parties to the matrimonial proceeding are employed. At present, the husband / opposite party herein is posted at Gurgao and wife is an Officer of the LIC now posted in Kolkata. The petitioner did not claim any alimony but she has claimed for litigation costs under the circumstances. So far as attending the learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad from Kolkata, I find that the petitioner did not produce any convincing paper to show the expenses incurred for attending the Court at Faridabad. Moreover, the dispute arose at Faridabad while she stayed thereat. Above all, the said suit before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad is not at all a matrimonial proceeding but a civil suit. Under the circumstances, the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the prayer to grant the litigation costs and, I hold, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. However, if the petitioner gets favourable order from that Court, such as, acquittal etc., the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for compensation and other reliefs in accordance with law. Similarly, if the husband succeeds in the said suit, he may also get costs and other reliefs in accordance with law. Therefore, this prayer for litigation costs is rejected without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the parties that may be passed in the said suit pending before the learned Civil Judge.
(3.) SO far as the cost for appearance before the said Court at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per appearance is concerned, I am of the view that since the said proceeding is not at all a proceeding for matrimonial matter, but a civil suit of declaration and injunction, no order for costs per appearance can be granted for the time being on the selfsame reasoning as recorded in the previous paragraph. The learned Presiding Officer has rightly rejected such prayer. So far as the litigation costs of Rs.20,000/- per appearance is concerned, I am of the view that in the Family Court the appearance of a lawyer is not compulsory and the learned Presiding Officer has rightly recorded that since, the wife is an Officer of the LIC, no such litigation costs should be allowed. I think the learned Trial Judge is justified in making such observations resulting in denial of the prayer of the petitioner.;