The duty of the Family Court to make efforts for conciliatory settlement between parties as mandated by the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.

IA. No. 10016 of 2016 was filed for condonation of delay of 271 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Notices were issued to both the respondents under ordinary process as well as registered cover in the limitation matter vide order dated 4.10.2018. Respondent no. 1 appeared through her counsel whereas notices on respondent no. 2 was served through his mother. Considering the nature of issue involved in the present Miscellaneous Appeal, the notice issued to the respondent no. 2 was treated as validly served vide order dated 1.2.2019 and by order dated 8.2.2019, the delay of 271 days in filing the appeal was condoned.

3. The sole appellant Abhishek Ranjan being the husband of the respondent no. 1 Anjali Verma, has assailed the order dated 23.2.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad whereby the Matrimonial Case No. 151 of 2014, filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage with respondent no. 1 on the ground of cruelty and adultery, has been dismissed due to non appearance of the appellant during conciliatory settlement proceeding undertaken by the learned Court under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Family Courts Act).In order to appreciate the issue involved in the present Miscellaneous Appeal, the question whether a matrimonial case can be dismissed due to non-appearance of the husband during conciliatory proceeding, it is relevant to analyze the factual aspect of the matter.

4. The appellant is the husband of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 is the person with whom the respondent no. 1, as claimed by the appellant, has the adulterous relationship.

5. The admitted fact of the case is that the appellant was married with respondent no. 1 on 24.12.2008 but subsequently, compatibility issue developed between them, as a result, Matrimonial Case No. 151 of 2014 was filed by the appellant before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad on 21.10.2014 seeking decree of divorce on dissolution of marriage between the appellant and respondent no. 1 on the ground of cruelty and adultery.

6. The Matrimonial Case no. 151 of 2014 was registered on 21.10.2014. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad ordered for listing the same on 22.10.2014 when the summons were issued to the respondents and the matter was fixed for 10.12.2014. Thereafter, the matrimonial case was adjourned on several occasions awaiting service report of the notices issued to the respondents. On 23.11.2015 both the respondents appeared in the matrimonial case and the respondents filed their written statement. An attempt for compromise was initiated and the matter was adjourned to 16.12.2015 for fixation of issue and settlement. Since the Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave, the case was adjourned for 18.12.2015. On 18.12.2015, the appellant appeared but on the prayer made on behalf of the respondents, the matter was again adjourned to 19.1.2016. On 19.1.2016, the appellant failed to appear. Consequently, non-bailable warrant was directed to be issued. On 4.2.2016, in presence of the parties, the matter was adjourned for 23.2.2016 for settlement but on that day, the appellant failed to appear, hence the Matrimonial Case was dismissed vide order dated 23.2.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad. The same is under challenge in the present proceeding.

7. The appellant also filed Complaint Case No. 895 of 2014 against both the respondents alleging offence under Sections 494 and 379 of the IPC on 18.11.2014. Consequently, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 18.11.2014 found a prima facie case for offences punishable under Sections 494 and 379 of the IPC and issued processes against the respondents. Respondent no. 1 Anjali Verma also filed