JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petition has been preferred by petitioner (wife) against the order dated 3rd May, 2003 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 13 of 2000, whereby and where-under the 3rd respondent (father-in-law of petitioner-sasur) has been allowed to appear as a power of attorney holder on behalf of husband of petitioner (2nd respondent) for examination and cross- examination and conducting the matrimonial suit in question. The subsequent objection to the similar effect raised by the petitioner having been rejected on 10th June, 2003, the petitioner has also challenged the same. 2. The main plea taken by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi is that the petitioner will not be prejudiced, if the 3rd respondent (father-in-law of petitioner) is allowed to conduct the case on behalf of her husband (2nd respondent). 3. According to petitioner, the 3rd respondent, her father-in- law being a interested party and witness in the matrimonial suit in question, cannot be allowed to act as an agent of her husband in a matrimonial suit, wherein generally the lawyers are also not allowed to appear on behalf of the parties. 4. Before deciding the question, this Court heard the wife (petitioner), the husband of petitioner (2nd respondent) and the father-in-law of petitioner (3rd respondent), separately, in camera to find out whether the parties agree for amicable settlement to lead conjugal life. The wife (petitioner) while agreed to lead conjugal life with her husband (2nd respondent), the husband (2nd respondent) shown his inability even to live together. The father-in-law of petitioner (3rd respondent) did not co-operate the Court to sort out the dispute between his son and his daughter-in-law. In this background, the case was heard on merit. In this case, it is not necessary to discuss the allegation and counter allegation made by the parties, which may be looked into by the Court below at appropriate stage. The Family Courts, have been established with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs as evident from the statement of objects and reasons to enact "The Family Courts Act, 1984". Legislatures noticed that the Courts in general were adopting procedure and continue to deal with family disputes in the same manner as other civil matters and the same adversary approach. Legislatures noticed that the Courts in general were adopting procedure and continue to deal with family disputes in the same manner as other civil matters and the same adversary approach. To adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings, instead of adversary approach, with a view to promote conciliation the family Courts were established. Under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the proceeding to be held in camera, if Family Courts so desires or if either party so desires. Right to make representation by legal practitioner has been excluded under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 except the cases the family Court allows assistance of a legal expert as an amicus curiae. 5. Initially, the wife (petitioner) filed a Matrimonial Title Suit No. 103 of 1998 at Ranchi for restitution of conjugal life. The husband (2nd respondent) in his turn filed a Matrimonial Title Suit No. 57 of 1998 at Bokaro for declaration of marriage as null and void. By the order of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, both of them are now being placed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. The Matrimonial Title Suit No. 57 of 1998 has been renumbered as Matrimonial Title Suit No. 13 of 2000. The present case is dealt with and continuing for last six years. It shows that the main object to establish the family Court is being frustrated even if no person has been, allowed to engage a Lawyer. Though the proceeding is generally held in camera, if the Court desires or either by the party desires and there is a bar of legal representation, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi allowed to introduce a third mode of representation by allowing the father-in-law of the petitioner to act as an agent of her husband, though he is a material witness, interested in favour of one or other party. Such decision of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi being against the basic structure and objects to create a separate Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984, the orders dated 3rd May, 2003 and 10th June, 2000 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 13 of 2000 are set aside. Now, six years have already passed since the institution of the case. Now, six years have already passed since the institution of the case. If the husband (2nd respondent) is interested for early decision and has any difficulty to pursue his case at Ranchi being posted in South India, he may take leave from his employer for fortnight or a month to pursue the suit preferred by him. In such case, if a request is made, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi will hear the case day to day; complete the proceeding and ensure early decision. The petitioner (wife) should co-operate in the proceeding. 6. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations.