IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1436 of 2008 RAHMATI KHATOON Versus MD. ASLAM KHAN ----------- 5 12/11/2008 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court the court below instead of becoming too technical ought to have complied the requirement of Rule 14 (1) of the Family Court (Patna High Court Rules 2000) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). As a matter of fact, though Rule 14 of the Rules would give an impression that the representation by legal practitioner in a matrimonial matter or any other matter pending before the Family Court is a discretionary power of the Court, but then exercise of such discretion has also been envisaged under the Rules itself. The Family Court, in fact while considering this aspect has to take into account not only the nature of controversy but the points involved in 2 the matrimonial case including the education, understanding and other relevant aspects forming background of the parties. Judged in the aforesaid background, the impugned order on the face of it is unsustainable, in as much as, it is case of the petitioner that she is unable to contest the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as she is uneducated and is not aware of the legal wrangles involved in the maintenance case. Counsel for the other side who has appeared for the husband, opposite party, is also not in a position to controvert the factual aspect that the petitioner, wife, is illiterate lady and needs her case to be represented before the Family Court by a legal practitioner. That being so, now requirement of Rule 14 (iii) of the Rules stands fulfilled because notice in this aspect to the husband will be deemed to have been given in view of the aforesaid findings recorded by this Court. This Court, accordingly, would set aside the first part of the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 and would direct the 3 court below to allow the petitioner to be represented by a legal practitioner in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules. Though, after passing of the aforementioned order matter could have been concluded, but now counsel for the husband, opposite party, makes submission that the court below, Family Court, be directed to be realize the amount of maintenance from the husband opposite party as per order dated 26.3.2004 in six easy instalments. In view of the fact that the wife has not been paid any amount and has to contest the proceedings for which now she is also required to engage a counsel, this Court would direct that the husband, opposite party to pay the entire amount of arrears in terms of the order dated 26.3.2004 within a period of six months in six equal monthly instalments, first of which would be paid on 1st December, 2008. It is made clear that in case there is any default on the part of the husband, opposite party, in making payment of arrears or current amount as directed by the court below, it will not only amount to 4 disobedience of the order of this Court but for this default the court below will be at liberty to take coercive steps. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is allowed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar