o'i-ifts te^«iit n'i '!i.iirt IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. / 2011 S.B. PETITIONER (Applicant) ^s {\tm\- CT.f(»)ic"*\V <\/-^ •y_^^.1r~ ^ ^ .^s^' ^y^-' <<•" VERSUS RESPQNDENTS [Non-applicantSb fi ()<l'KCovv\^ ;;ff. -?. gwn , i aT3ray;'a.ir/j'> Cletan Farnandis S/o Shri Late K.K. Farnandis, aged about 55 years, Retired Employee of District and Session Judge, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.), R/o Aakash Wadi Colony, Beside Cizo Typing, Chopadapara, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.). <A-^ 1. Eris Farnandis W/o Cletan Farnandis, aged about 50 years, Occupation- Housewife, 2. Aaskar Farnandis S/o Cletan Farnandis, aged about 15 years, through his natural guardian- n-iother- Eris Farnandis W/o Cletan Farnandis, aged about 50 years, Occupation- Housewife Both R/o near Gita Public School, Kedarpur, Police Station 85 Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .-y^ ^ ^ ':1 .-?S2,^ 1 ; ;;;-..^ ^'^-^u ^ '•'^^..'^' ?' '' *t\ ~... ..^f SCTlTlrti 'lWi Cletan Farnandis Versus Eris Farnandjs Presenj : IVir. Rishi Rahui Soni, counsei forthepetitioner. ;.<fl -i ><°k ^AfS .4 \ Heard on admission. 1 instant petitlon, fiied under Article 227 of the Constitution of inaia, calls in question the legaiity and propriety of the order dated 08.07.2011 passed by Family Court, Ambikapur, Surguja in Misc. Criminal Case No.94/2010 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's appiication for permission to be represented through counsel has been dismissed. 2. Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, ieamed counsel for the petitioner wouk submlt : petitioner is a retired person, he needs assistance of iawyer as he could not attend the court regularly and, therefore, the learned court below ought to have granted permission to the petitioner representation bv lawver. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the order imDugned. Section 13 ot" the Familv Court Act (for short 'the Act') reads "13.Right to iega! representi Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no party to a sult or proceeding before a Family Court ihali be entitled, as of right, to be represented by a !ega! practltioner: 'Provi.ded that If the Family Court considers it riecessary tn t'ne interest of justice, it may seek the assistgnce of a iega! expert as amlcus curiae." 5. The trial Court in i hoidlng the thal Court representation by lavi/yer. discretion re.iected the petitioner's praver las also not permitted the respondent 6. In view of above, 1 do not find any manifest error in rejection of the petitioner's prayer by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition beinc vvithout substance is liable to be and is hereby No order as to costs.