The judgment emphasizes the importance of making every endeavor to bring about reconciliation between the parties in matrimonial matters, as mandated by Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is by the wife challenging the decree for divorce granted by the Principle Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore in M.C. No. 41/06. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original proceedings.

2. The petitioner-M. Suresh Ballal married the respondent Smt. Padmalatha on 13.10.1995. A female child was born in July 1998. The record discloses in the year 2002, the second pregnancy was terminated. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent after coming to know that she is pregnant created a scene, started abusing the petitioner, showing gestures and started behaving indifferent, started showing disrespect and misbehaving and she became wild and outrageous for the pregnancy and insisted that she wanted to undergo an abortion and terminate the pregnancy. Therefore, she hated and ill-treated the petitioner and the child. She did not care for the child and she never had motherly love to the child and she started to quarrel with the petitioner and his family members. Since 1997 the respondent was subjecting the petitioner to mental cruelty. The petitioner suffered severe strain and mental agony and developed high blood pressure. The conduct, the manner of her behaviour, attitude of arrogance and domineering intention of the respondent started subjecting the petitioner to all sorts of mental tension and health problems and it is unsafe and dangerous for the petitioner to live under the same roof with the respondent. That the petitioners practically severed his marital relationship with the respondent since 2002 after the termination of the second pregnancy and have separated from bed and board. In May 2005, the respondent was taken away by her parents at her own wish. There is no compatibility of temperament between them. Their marriage has irretrievably broken. There is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent for filing this petition. Therefore, he sought for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and hereinafter referred to as the Act.

3. After service of notice the respondent remained absent therefore she was placed exparte.

4. Thereafter, the trial Court has framed the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the petitioner proves that he is subjected to mental cruelty by the conduct of the respondent as alleged?

2. Whether there are any sufficient and reasonable ground to grant a decree for divorce as prayed for?

5. In order to substantiate his claim the petitioner got examined himself as PW. 1. He filed an affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the petition but he was not cross-examined.

6. The trial Court proceeded on the assumption, as the petitioner was not cross-examined, his evidence is undisputed and unchallenged. Further, it observed that there is absolutely nothing contrary to the petitioner's case before the Court. Hence, in the absence of anything to the contrary, he did not find any reason to disbelieve or discard the case of the petitioner. For all the above said reasons, he proceeded to grant a decree for divorce. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order contended that Section 23 of the Act makes it very clear that in any proceedings under the Act, whether defended or not before a decree is passed on any of the ground enumerated under Section 13, the Court must be satisfied that the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner has not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief. Before proceeding to grant any relief under the Act, it was the duty of the Court in the fist instance, in every case, where it is possible to do so consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. Therefore, he submits that in the first instance, the allegations made in the peti