Rule 5 and 6 of Family courts Act = No petition should be dismissed for non-filing of affidavits by family court - As per rule 5 and 6 of Family courts Act , no affidavit is compulsory along with a petition as mentioned in civil rules of practice = = SMT.AYESHA SULTANA VS MR.S.K.AHMED & 2 OTHERS = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=2157&year=2013
As per rule 5 and 6 of Family courts Act , no affidavit is compulsory along with a petition as mentioned in civil rules of practice =
applications were rejected by the Court below at the threshold by separate orders dated 18.03.2013 on the ground that the applications were not supported by an affidavit of the party. =
However relying upon Rules 5 and 6 of the rules made under the Family Courts Act, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that for the purpose of interlocutory applications no affidavit need be filed by the applicant and it is enough if the applications are duly verified by the applicant.
It is to be noticed that the Court below did not consider the effect of the Rules made under the Family Courts Act and the applications were merely rejected on the ground that they were not supported by the affidavits. Therefore, in my considered opinion the applications require reconsideration.
| CRP 2157 / 2013 | CRPSR 12561 / 2013 |
|
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2157 & 2159 OF 2013
Date: 19.07.2013
Between:
Smt. Ayesha Sultana … Petitioner
And
Mr. S.K. Ahmed and others. … Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2157 & 2159 OF 2013
COMMON ORDER:
These two revision petitions are filed by the respondent No.2 in O.P. No.227 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court,Hyderabad
It appears that by an order passed on 31.12.2012 the Court below eschewed the evidence of the revision petitioner and therefore she filed two applications viz., I.A. SR.Nos.268 and 413 of 2013 seeking permission to engage an advocate to appear on her behalf and to set aside the order dated 31.12.2012.
Both the said applications were rejected by the Court below at the threshold by separate orders dated 18.03.2013 on the ground that the applications were not supported by an affidavit of the party. Aggrieved by the said orders, these two revision petitions are filed.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
As could be seen from the material available on record the revision petitioner appeared in person before the Court below and filed two applications with the above said prayers. Admittedly the petitions are not supported by an affidavit.
However relying upon Rules 5 and 6 of the rules made under the Family Courts Act, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that for the purpose of interlocutory applications no affidavit need be filed by the applicant and it is enough if the applications are duly verified by the applicant.
On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that as the petitioner failed to mention any reasons in her applications, she is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted.
It is to be noticed that the Court below did not consider the effect of the Rules made under the Family Courts Act and the applications were merely rejected on the ground that they were not supported by the affidavits. Therefore, in my considered opinion the applications require reconsideration.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits the orders under revision are set aside and the Court below is directed to consider the contention on behalf of the revision petitioner that as per the Rules made under the Family Courts Act the interlocutory applications can be entertained and considered even without any affidavit and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law.
Both the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the both the Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed.
__________________
G. Rohini,J
Date: 19.07.2013
GBS/MVA
Comments
Post a Comment