HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Petttion (Ci No. 2725 of 2007 Petitioner Smt. Preeti Gope, W/o. Shri Aiok Gope, aged about 31 years, R/o. Qtr. No. 134, indira Coiony, Behind Hospital Sector, Dailirajhara, District Durg (C.G.) Respondent Versus Alok Gope, S/o. Late Shri Bairam Gope, aged about 38 years, R/o. Qtr. No. F/12, C.S.E.B. Coiony, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDERARTiCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION Hon'bie Justice Shri Satish K. Aanihotri Present: Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (Passed on this 7th day of May, 2007) 1. The petitioner, being aggrieved, by the order dated 24.3.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the li" Additiona! Principal Fami'y Judge, Raipur, rejectlng the application of the petitioner under Section under Section 13 of the Famiiy Courts Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as to ^. 'the Act, 1948'), has filed this petition. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that in the facts of the csse the petitioner being a iady is entitled to the assistance of legal practitioner/amicus curiae. 3. On perusai of the pieadings and documents, after hearing iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no exceptional case has been made out, wherein the court below should exercise its power under the provision of Section 13 of the Act, 1948 in favour of the petitioner by permitting the assistance of iegal practitioner/amicus curiae. The ^g^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l^^ll ^j object for enacting the Act, 1948 Is te establish Family Court view. A Famity Court to permit in a sociai speedy setHement of dispute relating manriage and family matters connected therewith. Section 13 of the Act, 1948 reads as under- "13. Rtght to Legal representaiion.- Notwithstanding anything contained inanylaw, no party to asuit or proceeding before a Family Court shall be entifled, as of right, to be represented by a legal practitioner: Provided that tf the Family Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curtae. 4. There is a clear bar for representatlon on behalf of a party by a legal practitioner before the Court. However, it is discreSon of the Famtly Court in the interest of justice te seek the assistance of a legalexpert as amlcus curiae. There is no provision for engagement of a legal practitioner to represent a particular party. The assisiance of legal expert as amicus curiae under proviso toSection 13 ofthe Act, 1984 is for the Court, not for the party. 5. In view of the well setUed positionof law and having regard to the facte of the case, no case has been made out for jnterference with fhe *- impugned order dated 24.3.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by ths II Additional Principal Family Judge, fiaipur. The order is tegal, valjd and justffied warrante no interference. 6. Thus, this petition is dismissed summarily. B/- »• Sd/- . SatishK.Agoihotn Judge