JUDGMENT
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act 1984 there inafter referred to as the ‘Act’). This question is not res-integra and has already been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Kanpur Bar Association v. Union of India a (Writ Petition No. 1124/87) decided on January, 4, 1988 wherein the Supreme Court has observed :
“The substantive provision in Section 13 prohibits a party to a suit or proceedings before a Family Court from claiming as of right to be represented by a legal practioner. That ones not preclude the family Court from granting permission in the exercise of its discretion to a party to be represented by a legal practioner. There may be cases where the circumstances justify the representation by a legal practioner. It will be for the Family Court to decide whether it should permit such representation. No party can as of right claim to be represented by a legal practioner.”
Following this decision, this Court, in Smt. Supriya v. Naresh Kotwani (D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 401 of 1989) decided on November, 6, 1989 has raid :
“Thus it would appear that the question of constitutional validity is new not open to challenge in Misc. of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and the construction of Section 13 as it is far the family Court to grant permission in the exercise of its discretion to a party to be represented by a legal practioner in a matter before the family Court.”
2. In this view of the matter, we find force in the present writ petition. It would be open to the petitioner to move afresh before the Family Court for allowing him representation by a legal practioner or by an Attorney, justify Jug the circumstances for such representation and the family Court shall, on such application doing made, decide the question on the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also wanted a direction by this Court to the Union of India to bring in force the provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961. We may in this connection refer to Asltamash Rein v. Union of India reported in A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1768. There, the Supreme Court has said that prima facie there was no justification for not bringing into force Section 30 of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the Central Government six months’ time to consider the question whether Section 30 of the Act should be brought into force or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is thus seized of the question and it would not be proper for us to decide this question in this case.
4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the observations made above.