1 wp 5643.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5643 OF 2010 Ravikant S/o Punjaram Gadkari, Age : 31 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o F-17/11, Ayodhya Nagar, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. .. Petitioner Versus Sow. Rekha W/o Ravikant Gadkari, Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o C/o Govindrao Yamaji Dandge, R/o F-10/11, F-10/2, N - 6, Indira Chowk, Sambhaji Colony, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. .. Respondent Mrs. A. N. Ansari, Advocate h/f Mrs. C. E. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Ram Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2 wp 5643.10 2. The petition is filed against an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad rejecting the application of the petitioner for engaging an advocate. 3. Heard Mrs. Ansari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The respondent had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. After the petition was filed, the petitioner submitted an application for engaging advocate. The petitioner contended that he does not have the knowledge of Court proceedings and prayed to allow him to engage an advocate. So also he is in service in the District Rural Hospital, where the emergency services are required and does not get any leave. The Principal Judge Family Court, Aurangabad rejected the application filed on the ground that the petition is for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. The petitioner has shown the difficulties. Now doubt, the proceedings are for restitution of conjugal rights. The legal intricacies may arise during the proceedings. The petitioner has submitted that he does not have any knowledge about the Court proceedings and even the respondent has filed petition for 3 wp 5643.10 maintenance also. 6. Taking into account his nature of service, he has to attend emergency duties. The Principal Judge, Family Court has not considered any of these aspects and in one line has rejected the application. There is no impediment to allow the parties to engage the advocate, when such reasons are put forth by the petitioner. 7. In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "C" and application Exhibit 17 in Petition No. A-119/2009 is allowed. 8. Needless to state even if the present respondent wants to engage the lawyer, she is at liberty to engage, as the petitioner would be represented by the lawyer. The Family Court shall dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11