( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5793 OF 2010 Sunil s/o Ramprasad Karwa PETITIONER VERSUS Nilima w/o Sunil Karwa RESPONDENT .... Mr. B.A. Darak, advocate for the petitioner. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner is respondent in the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court. His request before the Family Court was to allow assistance of a lawyer. The learned Judge of the Family Court rejected the request for the reason that the matter does not involve any complicated legal issue. Challenging this order, counsel for the petitioner would submit that the question regarding alimony is also involved and, therefore, in view of “Lila Mahadeo Joshi v. Dr. Mahadeo Sitaram Joshi” (AIR 1991 BOMBAY 105), the permission should have been granted. The case of “Leela Mahadeo Joshi” reveals that the proceedings ( 2 ) were for divorce and, therefore, the questions involving certain rights of the spouses required determination. The judgement referred by the learned counsel reveals that some general observations have been made that the right of the parties regarding issues such as custody of children, visiting rights,maintenance, alimony, apportionment of property,etc. if are involved, then the parties may not be in a position to protect their own interest or that they may not be in a position to visualise future problems. Rule 37 of the Family Court Rules, 1988 gives discretion to the Judge of the Family Court to allow appearance of a lawyer in the proceedings. The discretion, ofcourse, has to be appropriately used and it would not be proper to deny permission in each and every case. The petitioner is a trader. He is not a layman. The proceedings are only for the maintenance allowance and that too of summary nature. In this view of the matter, refusal of the permission to him cannot regarded as arbitrary exercise of the discretion by the Judge of the Family Court. Petition is, therefore, destitute of merits and is dismissed accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp5793-10