(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No.1938 of 2009 Pravin Keshavrao Jadhav, Age : 29 years, Occupation : ;Nil, R/o. House No. 4-18/34-P, Baudhanagar, Jawahar Colony, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus Sow. Savita w/o. Pravin Jadhav, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Education / Student of M.A.II, Psychology, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, R/o. Pethenagar, Bhausingpura, Aurangabad. .. Respondent. .................. Mr. M.A. Manjaramkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent served (Absent). .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16TH JULY 2009. (2) COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. None for the respondent though duly served. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 28th May 2008, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, below Exhibits 12 and 15 in Petition No. A-221/2007, thereby rejecting the applications, one filed by the petitioner and another filed by the respondent, for allowing them to engage Advocate. 4. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The petitioner has filed Hindu Marriage Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing written statement. The parties to the proceedings applied to the Family Court for grant of permission to engage Advocates to plead their case. The said applications are rejected. Hence, the present petition. 5. This court had initially issued notice vide order dated 4th April 2009. However, inspite of being duly served, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, notice for final disposal was issued vide order dated 12th June 2009. The petitioner was also permitted to serve the respondent through her lawyer appearing in the Family Court. Though duly served, none appeared on 1st July 2009. However, in order to give one more opportunity to the respondent, the matter was adjourned for two weeks. Today also, none appears for the respondent. (3) 6. From the perusal of the pleadings, I find that it would be in the interest of justice, that the parties are permitted to plead their case through their Advocates. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned orders dated 28th May 2008, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, below Exhibits 12 and 15 in Petition No. A-221/2007, are quashed and set aside. (ii) It is further made clear that the respondent shall also be at liberty to engage a lawyer, if she so desires. It is further directed that if an application is filed by the respondent wife, for engaging a lawyer on her behalf, the same shall also be allowed by the Family Court. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/writ1938