The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the Family Court to permit representation by a lawyer in the interest of justice and the need to address tactics adopted to delay the proceedings.

1. 1. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, this special appeal is taken for final disposal.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.5.2000 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the wife respondent and set aside the order of the family court granting permission of the appellant to engage a lawyer.

3. It is contended by Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant that learned Single Judge dealing with Section 13 of the Family Act, 1984 has not taken into consideration Rule 22 of the Rajasthan (High Court) Family Courts (Amendment) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred as rules of 1994) which gives discretion to the Family Court to permit a party to be represented by lawyer. Rule 22 is extracted as follows :

"Permission for representation by a Lawyer-The Presiding Officer of a Family Court, in his discretion may permit a Lawyer/Advocate to appear in the court wherever he feels that it is necessary in the interest of Justice."

4. Reading of the rule clearly shows that the discretion is vested in the Presiding Officer to permit a party to appear in the court whenever he feels that it is necessary in the interest of Justice.

5. We have perused the judgment of the Family Court. The learned Judge has given cogent reasons for permitting the husband appellant to appear through a lawyer. The Family Court also allowed the wife respondent to be represented by a lawyer. However, we feel that the Family Court should have further directed the husband appellant to pay remuneration to her to enable her to engage a lawyer. Mr. Jasmatia submits that the appellant has been adopting directory tactics to delay the disposal of the petition before the Family Court. So far as this aspect is concerned, it can be taken care of by directing the Family Court to dispose of the proceedings pending before it within the stipulated period.

6. In view of the aforesaid, this special appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.5.2000 is quashed and set aside. The order of the Family Court dated 23.3.2000 is modified to the extent that the appellant Surendra Kumar Bhansali will pay sum of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent wife enable her to engage a lawyer of her choice. The Family Court will dispose of the suit latest by 31st March, 2001.Special Appeal Allowed - Order of Family Court modified.

*******