< E ‘ K . ~‘ \ E ( H JEN” B§EFORE BLé lf-IAI(GVH ‘ THE HON COURT OFCHHATTISGARH @ AT BILASPUR (c G; % i WRIT PETITION (22LIN0 :2 o 6) 12010 $§NGLE BENEEH ‘1; PETITIONER ' Smt.Kaplla S‘hrlvastava ’ I“. W/o. Shri Tathagat Shrivéstava, l aged about 37 years, R/o.“C-7, I Parijat Extension Nehru Nagar I x .4? PS CIVII Ilnes Dlstt Bllaspur(CG) ' ‘I - I VERSUS § I: I RESPONDENT Tathagat Shrlvastava i: ' i S/o. K. L. $hrlvastava, Profession — A Péged i ’ Advocate, Péged about 40 ye_al:s R/o. Shriram Célony, Beladula R'aipur, ‘ Rs. ChakraidharnagarjahsIIsIDist? I -, Raigarh (CG) i i i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSITUTION : ~ I OFINDIA ' 'aé E ‘ I III ETITIONER ‘ Smt Kapila Shnvas Versus ESPONDENT ‘ Tathagat Shrivaav / Muss Naushma Ah counse! for the petitione M QpF JIT PETITION UND§R RTlCNlmEig27 I D OF THE QQNSTITUT I QBAL magi: Y (13 12 2010) $ i x earned Family Couvt has rejected the petitioners prayer to seek lea swshgwe In proceeding under Sectron 127 of C (25 [Learned couhsel for the peimoner womd’submit that in the fa urcumskances of the case the Famuly Court should have raed th h p e matter fft n p e 3 he apphcatlon preferred by the petltroner for permrssron to seek leal ssrsarlce by apporntmg emlcus-cunae on her behalf has been d a at file s exur3e P/3 rn the wrrt petrtron. lt has been Mentioned ln- the alicatio a the respondent/husband rs a Lawyer whereas the etitioner se re lt Is further mentioned that she ls not aware of the rntrrcacres of le p h th ce ;. v r 'LwymK N i x \ cts and c gnt e appcahon as the petitioner Is not m a posmon to rosecute th eecively and convncmgly in the absence of rober legat'assktanc. () T g l 3Ann ppn tht p rs a hou wf gal , _ rovrsrons wereas e respondent is in active practi n perusal of the order passed by the Family Court rt does not appe a he Family Court has appreciated this crustal aspect of the ate ”Vher husband rs practicing Lawyer and the petitioner rs a ho ‘ I r $ I P tava R sta r L gl a C (4),‘ O ar tht t mtr that usewrfe t t 1 p In vew of‘te aboVe as als¢ in vew of law aid-down by te Ahra i h‘ ' i l h nd‘ Pradesh Hugh Court Interpreting the scop , of the prowsmns contained In Section 13 of the Family Courts Act 1984 i the matter of R Durga Prasad n s ‘ ‘ a t o I the mae Lee d S Jhi r I 9 By 105 h ted m AR 191 amba tis n k g t by er to see leat assisance a bhf t R th tr pomtmg amrcus-cunae on her eat o apear m e mate y d d ll te he petrtloner b apporntmg amlcus-cune as name y e petoner t ’ h p f h t bt, er aplication tiled beore te Cour eow t I p I t ld t (7) The etition rs thus altowed howe r smce he petition Is alowe a t t t t r ‘ er Prashant Kumar isra udge V; Union of India and another reported m AIR 1998 Adhra Pradeh 290. z s‘ ls n ttr of la Mahadeo Josh! Vs Mahaeo itaram os t f th pmon that the cur Is o e or sent a f lg t ptut' Is a ft cse or alowm he e () 6 Learned Famu Court Is therefore irected to provte ega assrsanc he admtssuon stage the respondent would ‘be at libery o seek vanalon o l ona p Sdl— (5i L t y e d b th m n Mh ,J