JUDGMENT 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."
4. There is no dispute with the proposition of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case, referred to above, as the Division Bench has observed that both the parties shall not be represented by the Advocates. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision reported in 1998 (2) AWC, 1551 - Prabhat Narain Tickoo v. Mrs. Mamta Tickoo and Ors. Learned counel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in II (1998) DMC, 166 (DB) - R. Durga Prasad v. Union of India and Anr., wherein the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has up held the validity of Section 7 of 'the Act. In paragraph 14 of the judgment in the case of R. Durga Prasad (supra) , it was observed :-
"14. In view of what is stated supra :
(1) we uphold the constitutional vires of Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984;
(2) that the main provision of Section 13 of Family Courts Act,1984 permits the parties to engage legal practitioner/s, but beyond the stage of impossibility of reconciliation exercised under Section 9 of the Act;
(3) under proviso to Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court shall be entitled to appoint amicus curiae to assist the said Court in addition to the legal practitioners, as may be appointed by the parties; and (4) that the Family Courts shall be entitled to impose upon a party before it who is economically sound and who can appoint a legal practitioner in the case of the contest, directing him/her to bear the legal expenses of the other spouse / party, on the analogy of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955."
5. In view of the decisions of Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, and a perusal of provision to Section 17 of 'the Act', it is clear that the views taken by the Court below in not permitting the parties to be represented by their legal practitioners, do not suffer from any error, much less manifest error of law, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.