AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Mohapatra, J.—This is an appeal u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
In a proceeding u/s 125 Cr, P;C. interim maintenance at Rs. 200/ per month was granted by the learned Magistrate when a proceeding was pending before him. An application was filed before learned Magistrate by appellant to pay the arrears of Rs. 2000/-on 12-3-1991 which was grants. At that stage proceeding has been transferred to Family Court. Before the Family Court, an application was filed by appellant for granting time on the ground that he is ill. Since the appellant was not present to press the petition, the same was rejected by the Family Court. On rejection of application non-bailable warrant of arrest and distress warrant are directed to be issued against appellant and his bailor. This is grievance of the appellant.
u/s 13 of the Act, right of parties to be represented by the legal practitioner is taken away. However, if Family Court considers it to be necessary in the interest of justice it may seek assistance of legal expert as amicus curiae. In this situation when appellant claims to be ill, there is no scope for his appearing to move the petition. There is no scope for a party to be represented by a Lower to move the petition. There is no finding that assertion in petition 2. that is not correct. No reason has been given in the order why the Family Court is not satisfied that a Lawyer should be engaged amicus curiae. In such circumstances, on this short ground the impugned order is vulnerable.
Setting aside the order would deprive the applicants for some time when the Court felt the necessity of granting interim maintenance u/s 125 Cr. P.C. to the applicants for their subsistence. In the cricumstances, while protecting interest of the applicants prejudice to appellant is also to be eradicated. In the circumstances, we are inclined to give liberty to the appellant to pay or deposit the entire amount due upto 30th June, 1991 by that date, subject to the condition that on or before 10th May, 1991, appellant shall pay or deposit a sum of Rs. 200/-. Another amount of Rs. 400/-shall be paid on or before 18th June, 1991. Balance amount shall be paid on or before 30th June, 1991. In default to comply with any part of this direction for which liberty is given to the appellant, direction of the Family Court for issue of non-bailable warrant and distress warrant against the appellant as well as bailor Madhusudan Sahoo shall become effective. Non-Bailable Warrant and Distress Warrant shall remain stayed till 30th June or till non-compliance of our direction whichever is earlier. Appellant shall give an undertaking that he shall not dispose of any property or leave jurisdiction of the Court in the meantime.
With the aforesaid direction, this appeal is disposed of.
J.M. Mahapatra, J.
I agree.