IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.575 of 2009 SANJAY KUMAR JHA, SON OF SRI BALDEV JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.- BAGAHI, P.S.- SUGAULI, DISTRICT – WEST CHAMPARAN ................. APPLICANT- PETITIONER Versus SMT.PREMSHILA DEVI, WIFE OF SANJAY KUMAR JHA, DAUGHTER OF LATE JAYBANT JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. – BAGAHI, P.S. – SUGAULI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2 16.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the husband- applicant of Divorce Suit no. 80 of 2005 against the order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Darbhanga in the suit whereby the learned court below has rejected the application of the petitioner to allow to appear through a lawyer in the suit with the observation that if the applicant-petitioner feels any difficulty in cross- examining the witnesses of the defendant, he shall be provided with an advocate amicus curiae. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once reconciliation has failed then the party is entitled to engage a lawyer in a divorce proceeding to prosecute the case on his behalf. He submits that since the petitioner had felt difficulty in conducting the case himself he had filed a petition for engaging a lawyer on his behalf. However, the court below has rejected the petition merely on the ground that the defendant wife had not engaged any lawyer on her behalf and was conducting the case herself. He submits that the capacity of the wife to conduct a case herself cannot be a ground for denying engagement of lawyer by the petitioner in case the petitioner feels difficulty in prosecuting the case himself. Learned counsel for - 2 - the petitioner further submits that Section 13 of the Family Courts Act contemplates difficulty of a party in prosecuting his case and making him entitled for engagement of a lawyer. He admits that although Section 13 of the Act does not give a right to a party but when the party feels apprehensive about proper conduct of the case by himself, his application for appointment of lawyer on his behalf should be normally allowed. In support of this submission learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of R. Durga Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ant. reported in AIR 1998, A.P. 290 and has particularly referred to the following passage of the judgment form paragraph 13:- Ignorance of law may not be the excuse, but ignorance of the parties to plead before the court can be the excuse and if the party thinks that it can not effectively project its legal rights, such party should have the right to appoint a legal practitioner and that is how Section 13 of Family Courts Act has to be understood and interpreted and we do so. But, if a party to the lis before the Family Court appoints an advocate beyond the stage of conciliation, then the party-in-opposition shall not only be entitled to appoint a legal practitioner, but if the economic situation does not permit such party in opposition, then the Family Court shall be entitled to impose upon the other party to bear the reasonable costs of such legal practitioner. In this regard, the Family Court shall follow the concept of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Considering the observations of the learned Division Bench of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, this Court feels that the application of the petitioner for appointment of lawyer as and when the petitioner finds difficulty in conducting the case himself, should be - 3 - considered in view of the ratio laid down in the said judgment. In such an eventuality, as per the ratio laid down in the said judgment, in case defendant wife is also compelled to engage a lawyer, the court below shall be at liberty to fix responsibility on the petitioner husband for meeting the cost of the same from his own pocket. With the above observations and liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application for appointment of a lawyer on his behalf as and when he feels necessary, this revision application is disposed of. Kundan (J. N. Singh, J.)