JUDGMENT 1. The issue involved in this case is with regard to the right of the petitioner to be represented through a lawyer before the Maintenance Tribunal & Revenue Divisional Officer in a proceeding filed under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 2. The second respondent who is the father of the petitioner filed an application before the competent authority, claiming maintenance form the petitioner and after considering the same, Ext.P2 order was passed by the said authority on 21/2/2012. It is stated that, the second respondent is not satisfied the same, who wants to proceed further and accordingly, he has filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, pursuant to which, Ext.P3 notice has been issued to the petitioner to 'appear in person'. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner wants to engage a lawyer of his choice, which however is not permitted by the first respondent in view of the bar under section 17 of the Act 56/2007 and hence under challenge. 3. The second respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit stating that, there is absolutely no basis for the claim put for to be represented through a lawyer. Reliance is sought to be placed on the law declared by the Apex Court reported in 2011 (3) KLT SN 150 ( case number 151) Venkatachalam v. Ajith Kumar C. Shah holding that, it is open for the persons like the petitioner to appoint an 'authorised agent' who can appear on behalf of the party. 4. The learned counsel of the second respondent submits that, by virtue of the enabling provisions under the Act, the petitioner can appoint a person of his choice as the authorized representative. The present writ petition challenging the notice issued by the first respondent vide Ext.P3 referring to the right to be represented through a lawyer, is stated as only to protract things; more so with reference to the age of the second respondent who has crossed 89 years and has almost attained the 'status' of a nonagenarian. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that, the idea and understanding of the second respondent with regard to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, to be represented through a lawyer, is not at all correct. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that, the idea and understanding of the second respondent with regard to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, to be represented through a lawyer, is not at all correct. More so, in view of the notification issued by the Central Government bringing Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961 in to force with effect from 15/6/2011. 6. The learned counsel also submits, that there is absolutely no basis in the claim projected by the second respondent and that there is no fault or lapse on the part of the petitioner as well. It is also stated that the second respondent, even at this age, has contracted marriage with a person who is stated as younger than the age of the petitioner and that the problem started only thereafter. It is with reference to the relevant facts to be projected before the concerned authority and the relevant provisions of law, that the petitioner sought for permission to have the assistance of a lawyer, which now stands to be a vested/declared right. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, there was an occasion for this Court to have considered similar issue, with reference to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, in respect of the proceedings before the Family Court, in the decision reported in 2011 (3) KLT 936 Saji v.Union of India. With regard to the decision sought to be relied on from the part of the second respondent, it is seen that it was with reference to the rights and liberties of the party to be represented before the forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, 'through an authorised agent'. It however does not relate to the right of a lawyer to enter appearance on behalf of a litigant by virtue of the mandate under Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961. 7. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, there is no dispute as to the fact that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which was lying dormant right from the date of incorporation, till the parliament decided to give effect to the said provision with effect from 15/6/2011. 7. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, there is no dispute as to the fact that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which was lying dormant right from the date of incorporation, till the parliament decided to give effect to the said provision with effect from 15/6/2011. By virtue of the said provision, the provisions contained in various statutes, restricting the right of a Lawyer, placing an embargo with regard to the right to appear before the concerned forum Court/Tribunal has rather become watered down. The position has been discussed by this Court in detail as per the decision cited supra ie., 2011 (3) KLT 936 Saji v. Union of India. 8. In the above circumstances, this Court finds, that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. However, taking note of the particular submissions made in the part of the second respondent as to the necessity to have the proceedings finalised within the shortest possible time, this Court makes it clear that the first respondent shall finalise the proceedings pending before him, forming the subject matter of Ext.P3, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The parties shall appear before the first respondent, on 21st January between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., for further steps in this regard. Writ petition is disposed of.