JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the husband-respondent. 2. The crux of the revision petition is that the petitioner has submitted an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband-respondent. 3. During the course of proceeding she has submitted photostat copies of some documents like:- Sl. No. Name of the list Quantity 1. Original Ration Card 1 Sheet 2. Original Adhaar Card No. 282542583213 1 Sheet 3. Original Voter I.D 1 Sheet 4. Original Joint Bank Passbook 1 sheet 5. Original PRTC 1 sheet 6. Original ROR 1 sheet 7. Original Rubber Board (Memo) 1 sheet 8. Original Indranagar T.K. Rashit 1 sheet 9. Original Salary Certificate 1 sheet 10. Original Share Certificate 1 sheet 11. BPL Shamikhar Format 2009 5 sheet Total 15 sheets 4. But the learned Family Court did not accept those documents on the ground that those documents cannot be admitted as evidence at the stage of argument. The Petitioner has submitted original copies of the documents on 07.06.2017 before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court after perusing the documents have rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the original copies of those documents were not submitted at the appropriate stage of the proceeding and he held that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse in Court proceeding. 5. After being viewed as stated above the learned family Court vide order dated 07.06.2017 had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for accepting the original copies of those documents. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present revision petition. 7. Mr. P Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in Family Court strict compliance of procedures may not be followed. Under the Act the litigants are not allowed to engage lawyer who, inter alia, are conversant to the proceedings of different Courts. 8. Per Contra, Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner should have submitted the original copies during the appropriate stage of the proceeding before the Family Court. Despite having opportunities she did not file the same and the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner to accept those documents vide its order dated 07.06.2017. 9. Despite having opportunities she did not file the same and the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner to accept those documents vide its order dated 07.06.2017. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. 10. The rules of procedure in question for submission of documents at a particular stage has to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes injustice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. It is axiomatic that rules or procedure are hand-maid of justice and not its mistress and the Code of Criminal Procedure is not exception thereto. Its incorporation in the statute book has been to sub-serve the ends of justice and non-observance of the technicalities does not and cannot frustrate the concept of justice since technicality alone would not outweigh the course of justice. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice of procedure prescribed to submit documents at a particular stage. 11. As procedure is aptly described to be the hand-maid of justice, the Court may in appropriate cases ignore or excuse a mere irregularity in the observance of the procedural law in the larger interest of justice. It is, however, always to be borne in mind that procedural laws are as valid as any other law and are enacted to be observed and have not been enacted merely to be brushed aside by the Court. Justice means justice to the parties in any particular case and justice according to law. If procedural laws are properly observed, as they should be observed, no problem arises for the Court for considering whether any lapse in the observance of the procedural law needs to be excused or overlooked. In my opinion depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case in the larger interests of administration of justice the Court may and Court in fact does, excuse or overlook a mere irregularity or a trivial breach in the observance of any procedural law for doing real and substantial justice to the parties and the Court passes proper orders which will serve the interest of justice best. 12. It is true that prudence of law cannot be an excuse in a Court proceeding. But the nature of litigation is to be considered by the Court or Tribunal. 12. It is true that prudence of law cannot be an excuse in a Court proceeding. But the nature of litigation is to be considered by the Court or Tribunal. Moreover, in this type of cases before the family Court, the learned lawyers cannot be engaged who are well conversant with the strict procedure of the Court, which, according to me, may be applied in the proceeding before the Family Court in its strict sense. 13. Another aspect is that if those documents are allowed to be produced before the family Court, the respondent-husband would not suffer any prejudice. He has every right to controvert those documents. 14. Situated thus, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to direct the learned Family Court to permit the petitioner for submitting the documents and after accepting those documents the family Court will take appropriate course of action and allow the respondent-husband to adduce evidence, if he so desires. Simultaneously, opportunity has also to be afforded to the wife-petitioner to adduce evidence on the documents she wanted to press in support of her case. 15. It should not be forgotten that in an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. 16. Accordingly, I direct the learned Family Court to accept the documents the petitioner have submitted before him and proceed in accordance with law. The order dated 07.06.2017 passed by the learned Family Court is set aside. 17. Consequently, the petition is allowed and disposed of.