BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce and is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 20. 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 1st Court, hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No. 236 of 1992 thereby passing a decree for divorce.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein filed the aforesaid Matrimonial Suit No. 236 of 1992 for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The case made out by the respondent in the said application for divorce was as follows.

( 3 ) THE parties were married according to hindu rites on March 12, 1981 and after such marriage they lived in the house of the husband. The respondent was the only male issue of his parents and had to maintain his unmarried sister and parents. He was an M. A. B. Ed. and a teacher in a local High School. The appellant often used to leave her matrimonial home without the consent of the husband or his parents. In the month of October, 1981, she left the matrimonial home without any reason and went to Bagda in the house of father-in-law of her maternal uncle. The husband went there to bring her back but she refused to come, However, in the year 1984, she came back and started living with the husband and ultimately on March 21, 1985 a male child was born in the wedlock. After the "annaprashan" ceremonyof the son, the appellant deserted the husband and filed a false case under Section 498 (A) of the indian Penal Code being G. R. Case No. 601 of 1986 as a result, the respondent and the members of his family were all arrested. However, they were all/acquitted on July 31,1992. The appellant moved a revisional application before this Court against order of acquittal but the said criminal revisional application was also dismissed by this Court. The respondent thereafer filed the instant matrimonial suit for divorce.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement thereby denying the allegations made in the application for divorce and the defence of the appellant was that she was subjected to torture and out of fear of life she had to take shelter at Bagda. The appellant made allegation of cruel treatment against husband and she justified the allegations made in the case under Section 498 (A) of IPC.

( 5 ) AT the time of hearing of the aforesaid suit the husband himself and two other persons gave evidence in support of the allegations made in the application for divorce while the appellant and her father deposed in opposing the prayer.

( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge by the judgment and decree impugned herein found that the appellant was guilty of both desertion and cruelty and accordingly decreed the suit.

( 7 ) BEING dissatisfied, the wife has preferred the instant appeal. Mr. Palit, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of this appeal has made two-fold submissions.

( 8 ) THE first point taken by Mr. Palit is that in the instant case the learned trial Judge, before proceeding with the trial of the suit, did not try to make any reconciliation between the parties as provided in section 23 (2) of Hindu Marriage Act and in the absence of such endeavour on the part of the learned trial Judge to make reconciliation, the decree passsed by the learned trial Judge is a nullity. Mr. Palit submits that the provision contained in Section 23 (2) of the hindu Marriage Act is a mandatory provision and if a trial Judge grants a decree without complying with the said requirement of law, such decree should be set aside. In other words. Mr. Palit contends that the learned trial Judge does not get any jurisdiction to proceed to the merit of the case unless an attempt has been made for reconciliation. In support of such contention, Mr. Palit has referred the following decisions : (A) Balwinder Kaur v. Hardeep Singh. (b) Chhotelal v. Kamala Debi andors (c) Ram Kumar v. Kamala Dutta. (d) Sakri v. Chhannarlal. (e) Smt. Neera v. Kishan Swarup, (f) Raghunath Prasad v. Smt. Urmila debi (g) Pram

Click Here to Read the rest of this document