Section 13 of the Family Court Act, 1984 states, ``Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no party to a suit or proceeding before a Family Court shall be entitled, as a right, to be represented by a legal practitioner.''

This section has been raising the hackles of city lawyers for a long time because by an apparent anomaly, Rule 37 enacted by the Maharashtra State under the same Act, provides permission for representation by a lawyer if the case involves complicated questions of law. ``While Family Courts in Mumbai, Nagpur and Aurangabad use their discretion in allowing litigants to engage lawyers, the Family Court of Pune does not do so,'' says Sureshchandra Bhosale, president of Pune Bar Association.

``Pune is the only city where a wife living within the corporation limits, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Family Court, is restricted from engaging a lawyer whereas a woman residing in Pimpri-Chinchwad can do so,'' says Bhosale. Almost as a rule, legal practitioners are not allowed in maintenance cases. ``In other cases too, when an application is filed by a party for engaging the services of a lawyer, permission is not granted for a long time,'' he adds.

The proposed amendment is a removal of Section 13 or its amendment in such a manner that whenever a litigant applies for permission to engage a lawyer, it should be given, leaving the choice of being represented by a lawyer on her or him. The aim is to woo the Central Government by asking Maharashtra MPs to put forth a move for amendment. The suggested amendment will be handed over to local MP Vitthal Tupe this Sunday for debate in the next session of Parliament.