JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants/non-applicants under section 19 of the Family Court Act against the order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the respondent/applicant for issuing direction to the non-applicant/appellant for cross-examination of the applicant by the non-applicants and not to provide legal assistance in the matter to him for the purpose of cross-examination, has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel contended that after coming into the force of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which has been brought into force from 15.06.2011, no prior permission is required to appear before the Learned Family Court. Even for the sake of argument it may be presumed that by virtue of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 any permission is required then also the discretionary powers should be exercised by the Court judicially and meticulously. The discretionary power of any Court depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The discretionary power may be exercised in the interest of Justice. In the present case, the matter is related with custody of minor female child. Learned counsel contended that in the matter of granting the custody of a child, the relevant factor is only the welfare of the child. In such circumstances the question which is under consideration before the Learned Family Court is complex in nature and same can be proved or disproved by a person who is having legal expertise. The appellants submitted all the aforesaid facts before the learned Family Court but the learned Family Court completely failed to appreciate the aforesaid important factual aspect of the matter and allowed the application filed by the respondent without any cogent reason and as such the impugned judgment to the extent of allowing the application filed by the respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside on account of not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. Permission for appearance through an Advocate is in interest of justice and moreso the learned Family Court also gets the proper legal assistance through an Advocate because a lawyer is gifted with natural quality, ability and experience not only to persuade to judges on a point of fact or law but also the parties to settle their dispute. Permission for appearance through an Advocate is in interest of justice and moreso the learned Family Court also gets the proper legal assistance through an Advocate because a lawyer is gifted with natural quality, ability and experience not only to persuade to judges on a point of fact or law but also the parties to settle their dispute. Initially the learned District & Sessions Judge was having jurisdiction of the matter under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (‘the Act of 1890’ for short) and there was no such provision by which any permission was required to put appearance of an advocate on behalf of any of the party with the prior permission. Looking to the nature of the matter, entire life of the child and looking to the complexity of the matter, the legal assistance is necessary requirement in such matter. 3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon following judgments:— 1. Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, Supreme Court of India v. Union of India; AIR 1988 SC 1768 ; 2. C.P. Saji v. Union of India, 2011 (3) KHC 675 ; 3. Smt. Nandana v. Pradeep Bhandari, 1996 (2) WLC (Raj.) 236; 4. Smt. Laxmi Kanwar v. Laxman Singh, 2004 (3) WLC (Raj.) 278; and 5. D.B. Civil Reference No. 1/2017 (Kavita Vyas v. Deepak Dave) decided on 05.01.2018; 2018 (1) RLW 97. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, perused the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court and also gone through the Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 deals about ‘Right to legal representation’, which is reproduced as under:— “13. Right to legal representation.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no party to a suit or proceeding before a Family Court shall be entitled, as of right, to be represented by a legal practitioner: Provided that if the Family Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curiae.” A bare reading of Section 13 of the Act of 1984 shows that a party has no absolute right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the learned Family Court but it is in the discretion of the family court to permit the lawyer as amicus Curie for assistance. On the facts of the present matter, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not helpful to the appellants. 6. Indisputably the discretionary power of the Court depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Present matter is related with custody of minor female child who is presently living with her maternal grand-father and grand-mother. The learned Family Court while allowing the application of the applicant-father filed with the prayer not to permit applicant's cross-examination through Lawyer was allowed. The observation made by the learned Family Court was that the matter was pending for cross-examination of the applicant since 2012. 7. It is pertinent to note that in the matter of grant of custody of a child, the welfare of the child is paramount consideration. The learned Family Court while exercising discretionary jurisdiction allowed the application vide order dated 05.04.2018, as the matter was pending for the purpose of cross- examination of the applicant for the long time. There fore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. The misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. However, it shall be open for the appellants to file fresh application at the stage of further proceedings, if so advised, for seeking legal assistance of amicus curiae and if such application is filed, the learned Family Court is expected to decide the same afresh after considering overall the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with law.