The duty of the court to make every endeavor to bring about reconciliation between the parties under Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not absolute and should be exercised at a stage that is appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

NAGENDRA RAI, J.

1. The present revision application arises out of matrimonial case. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9-5-91 passed by VIth Addl. District Judge, Patna, in Matrimonial Case No. 105 of 1989, by which he allowed the prayer of the Opp. party for making endeavour for reconciliation between the parties, as provided under Sub-sec. (2) of S. 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The opp. party filed the aforesaid petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the allegation that his marriage with Sushma Kumari was solemnised in a Kali Mandir at Darbhanga house on 30-11-1987 in presence of friends and well-wishes. The father of the girl was not agreeable to the marriage on the ground that his son was married with the sister of the opp. party. Both lived as husband and wife for sometime at his house and later on Sushma Kumari went to her fathers place and when he went to his father-in-laws place for Bidai of his wife he was not allowed to take her with him an on pretext or the other and, lastly, on 17-12-89 Sushma Kumari also refused to come along with him. She has withdrawn from his society without any reasonable excuse and hence the necessity for filing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. During the pendency of the case, a petition was filed on behalf of the opposite party before the court for taking steps for reconciliation as provided under S. 23(2) of the Act. The petitioner objected to the aforesaid prayer of the opp. party by filing a rejoinder stating therein that there was no relationship of husband and wife between the parties and as such there is no question of taking steps for reconciliation between the parties.

4. The court below, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order allowed the prayer of the opp. party for making an endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the provision of S. 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not a mandatory one and the court below wrongly held so, and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to be present for reconciliation. He also contended that even if it is held that the said provision is a mandatory one, the proper stage to exercise power under S. 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is when the court decides to grant relief under the Act. In other words, the power under the said Section is to be exercised after the evidence is over and the court decides to grant relief to the party concerned.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the opp. party, on the other hand contended that the words of S. 23(2) are mandatory one and the duty is cast on the court to make endeavour to bring about reconciliation at the very first instance before proceeding in the matter. Elaborating his submission, he contended that object behind the aforesaid provision is to provide all help in the maintenance of marital ties and to restore peace to the alienated couple and as such the attempt to bring about a reconciliation is to be made at the initial stage of the proceeding and for that reason the legislature purposely said in the said Section that the attempt for reconciliation should be made at the first instance.

7. As the controversy between the parties centres round the provision of S. 23(2) of the Act it is apt to quote the same which runs as follows :-

"Sec. 23(2) : Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties." It is well settled rule of interpretation that where the provision of the Section is clear and unambiguous then the same to be interpreted according to its plain meaning and only in cases of ambiguity the other rules of interpretation are to be resorted to find out the intent of the legislature. A bare r