BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is at the instance of a wife in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and is directed against Order No. 49 dated September 16,1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 4 of 1996 thereby rejecting an application of the present petitioner under Order 32 (A), Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking service of any Councellor being Welfare Expert (preferably women) engaged in promoting the welfare of the family for the purpose of effective councelling to resolve the dispute between the parties. ( 2 ) IN the aforesaid suit for declaration that the marriage was a nullity, for suppression of material facts as regards the alleged epilepsy of the petitioner, the learned trial Judge tried for reconciliation in terms of Section 23 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears from the record that inspite of best attempt, such reconciliation failed and accordingly the learned trial Judge fixed a date of hearing of the trial. At this stage, the petitioner came forward with a fresh application thereby praying for taking the service of an expert engaged in promoting the welfare of the family as mentioned in the said application. ( 3 ) BY the order impugned herein, the learned trial Judge has rejected such prayer on the ground that in the past, endeavour on the part of the Court in terms of Section 23 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act having failed/there was no necessity of passing any further order in terms of Order 32 (A), Rule 4 of the Code. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in revision. Mr. Dutt, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in view of mandatory provision of Order 32 (A), Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was the duty of the learned trial Judge to allow such application. According to Mr. Dutt, merely because an attempt for reconciliation on the part of the Court has failed, the Court ought not to have rejected his client's prayer. According to Mr. Dutt if assistance of expert in this held is taken, there may be chance of reconciliation. According to Mr. Dutt, merely because an attempt for reconciliation on the part of the Court has failed, the Court ought not to have rejected his client's prayer. According to Mr. Dutt if assistance of expert in this held is taken, there may be chance of reconciliation. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has on the other hand opposed the aforesaid prayer and has contended that in view of the nature of allegation made in the application there was no possibility of any reconciliation and the Court itself having felt that there is no possibility, the Court rightly rejected such application. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned Advocate for the parties and after going through the aforesaid provision contained in Order 32 (A), Rule 4 of the Code it appears to me that it is for the Court to consider whether any assistance of an expert in a given case is necessary. If the Court thinks mat by taking assistance of an expert in such field any reconciliation is possible, the Court may seek the assistance of such expert. But in the instant case the Court has already considered the question of reconciliation and having failed, this Court is not inclined to interfere with discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Dutt that if a party seeks assistance of an expert as mentioned in Order 32 (A), Rule 4 of the Code, the Court is bound to appoint such expert as prayed for by a party. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, I find no substance in this application. The revision application is thus dismissed. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances, there will be however no order as to costs.