Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 566 (CAL)

In re: Md. Haidar v. .

2002-08-23

D.P.SENGUPTA

body2002
JUDGMENT D.P. SENGUPTA, J. 1. In the present revisional application, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 10.7.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kolkata in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Misc. Case No. 83 of 2000. 2. It appears that the predecessor-in-office of the present Judge, Family Court, by an order dated 11.10.2001, directed the present petitioner/husband to engage a Lawyer of his choice. According to such liberty granted by the court, Vokalatnama was filed on behalf of the present petitioner/husband, which contained the names of the two learned Advocates. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 10.7.2002 by the learned Judge it was observed in the impugned order that since there was a direction to engage only one Lawyer, the present petitioner/husband could be allowed to engage two Lawyers as the Vokalatnama filed by the husband was signed by two Lawyers. 3. But I fail to understand why the learned Judge has made such observation. If any Vokalatnama is filed signed by the two Lawyers, it cannot stand in the way of conducting the case by one of the learned Lawyers on behalf of the husband/present petitioner. 4. Mr. Imam, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party/wife also supports the contention made by the learned Advocate of the petitioner/husband and submits that the learned Judge may be directed to proceed with the matter and to conclude the same without any unnecessary delay. 5. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, I dispose of the present revisional application and direct the learned Judge, Family Court to allow the present petitioner/husband (Md. Haidar) as also the opposite party/wife to be represented by their respective learned Lawyers named in the Vokalatnama so filed in the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Misc. Case No. 83 of 2000. The learned Judge is further directed to conclude the original proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without unnecessary delay and without unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 6. The present revisional application is accordingly disposed of. 7. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties at an early date. Revisional application disposed of.