1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner -wife, being aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2014 passed in M.C.No.1163/2014, by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, following the Hindu Vedic rites, the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 27.06.2013, at Nijaguna Kalyana Mantapa, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. The marriage was also registered. The respondent -husband, through his power of attorney holder, filed on 11.03.2014, in the Family Court, Bangalore, M.C. No. 1163/2014, under S.12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the H.M. Act') to pass a declaratory decree that the marriage is null and void ab-initio. Petitioner having entered appearance on 18.06.2014, filed a memo on 23 07.2014, to refer the case for mediation, by placing reliance on the decision in AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD. AND ORS. (2010) 8 SCC 24. The Family Court Judge, having briefly noticed the facts of the case, passed the impugned order. The relevant portion reads thus:

"When, the prayer is to declare the marriage as null and void ab initio such a matter cannot be referred to mediation. The law cannot given in the hands of parties to decide by themselves as to what is a nullity and what is a fraud the plea that a party to a marriage certainly needs recording of evidence and does not depending upon then say of the party. Thus on facts it is not a proper case to exercise discretion to refer to the mediation. With regarding to the Ruling cited in para 18 it is held cases involving allegation of fraud coercion are not suitable for ADR process. In para No.l9(ii) it is held that all case arises from disputes relating to matrimonial causes may be referred to but in para No.l9(v) it is suitable clarified that the enumeration of suitable and categorization of cases is not intended to exhaustive or rigid. They are illustrative which can be subjected to just exceptions of the court exercising the discretion. Thus I am afraid to misapply the said ruling and refer the matter to mediation."

3. Sri A. Ravishankar, learned advocate, severely criticised the impugned order and argued that the Judge of the Family Court committed serious error in holding that the case is not fit for reference to mediation. He contended that the impugned order is a mindless order. He submitted that the dear statutory mandate and the object and purpose of S.9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act'), has been negated, since there is virtual encouragement of litigation between the estranged spouses. He contended that the entire approach of the Judge, to the case, is in utter breach of the relevant statutory provisions. He submitted that the impugned order suffers not only from procedural irregularities, but also legal infirmities and is not a judicious order. Submission of the learned advocate is that the impugned order being in violation of the relevant provisions of the Act, H.M. Act & the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the. Code'), is liable to be quashed.

4. Sri M.V.V. Ramana, learned advocate, or.-the other hand, strenuously supported the impugned order. He submitted that without even filing the counter and placing on record the defence, if any, to the case, it is not open to the petitioner, 10 demand as a matter of right, reference of the matter to mediation. He submitted that the conciliation or mediation, if found necessary, can take place at a later stage. He argued that the Family Court did not commit any error by refusing to refer the matter, at this stage of the case, to mediation. He submitted that with an intention to delay the decision of the case, a memo seeking reference to mediation was filed and that there being Sack of bona fides, the impugned order was passed and the same is justified.

5. Having regard to the rival con