1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 6044/2010 (Smt. Puneet Sanjay Arora VERSUS Sanjay Shobhraj Arora) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Shyam Dewani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.R. Sharma with Shri M.A. Vishwarupe, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 22 , 2011 . Heard. Perused the impugned order dated 13.01.2010. It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner is presently staying in United States of America and, therefore, is not able to come for counseling at this stage. The trial Court had rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 37 of the Family Courts Rules of 1988 for grant of permission to represent through a lawyer. It appears that the application is erroneously rejected merely because the petitioner was unable to come for counseling before the Court at that stage. However, in the interest of justice, the following order is passed with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner would be permitted to represent through a counsel and, hence, it would be necessary to allow the application filed by the petitioner at Exhibit 17. The application for grant of permission to represent through a lawyer is, therefore, allowed. So also, application at Exhibits 15 and 16 are also allowed. 2 Though the petitioner is not able to come to Nagpur presently as she is a citizen of United States of America, the petitioner undertakes to appear before the Court as soon as it is possible for the petitioner to come to Nagpur and whenever it is necessary for the petitioner to remain present before the Court, specially at the time of tendering of the evidence. Presently, the petitioner would not be undergoing the counseling and the Family Court should proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Since this is a matrimonial matter and the respondent has filed the proceedings for grant of decree of divorce, the Family Court is expected to decide the matter as early as possible. In case, the petitioner is present before the Court at the time of tendering of evidence or even at an earlier stage of the proceedings, the petitioner may be permitted to undergo the counseling in case, it is necessary to do so. However, this would have no effect whatsoever on the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the respondent and the same would go on either with the counseling or in the absence of the same. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE