It is obligatory for the court to make an earnest attempt for reconciliation in matrimonial disputes, and the courts below erred in rejecting the husband's application for counseling under Section 14 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.

1. This Revisional Application is directed against the order No.6 dated 15th July, 2011 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Criminal Motion No.126 of 2011 affirming the order dated 11th February, 2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore in Complaint Case No.702 of 2010.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant revision may be summarized as follows:-

“The O.P./wife filed one complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against her present petitioner/husband. The petitioner entered into appearance in that case and was contesting the same. In course of such proceedings, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the said Act praying for an order for counselling between the parties. In that petition, the petitioner stated that he had already filed a Matrimonial Suit being No.137 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal life and that, he is eager to restore their conjugal relation.

3. The Learned Magistrate, however, on hearing both the sides, rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act observing that since both the parties have got allegations and counter allegations, it is quite difficult for them to reside together.

4. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner/husband preferred a Revision but the same was also dismissed on contest by the order impugned.

5. The O.P. No.2 who is the wife of the present petitioner has been duly served. But she has not chosen to enter appearance or oppose this Revision.

6. Mr. Debasish Banerjee, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/husband has assailed the orders of the lower Court on the following grounds:-

i) Both the Learned Courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity by rejecting the prayer for counselling as provided under Section 14 of the Act.

ii) They failed to appreciate that the O.P./wife is willing to continue with her marital relationship by filing the petition under the Act without taking recourse to file a suit for divorce and so, there is ample scope for reconciliation between the parties.

iii) They have failed to visualize the aim and object of the Act and have arrived at a finding which tantamounts to declaration that there has been irretrievable break down of the marriage which is beyond their jurisdiction. They ought to have kept in mind that the Legislative intent enshrined in all the Matrimonial Legislations is that the Court is under an obligation to make sincere endeavour for reconciliation between the parties.

iv) They miserably failed to appreciate that the aggrieved wife will in no manner be prejudiced if the reconciliation fails and the Court concerned would have liberty to pass order accordingly.

v) The Learned Magistrate passed the order in a very casual manner without applying his judicial mind.

vi) Learned Appellate court failed to take note of these defects and the judgment and order of the Lower Court should be set aside on these grounds. He relied on the decision reported in (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 226 in support of his contention.

7. Appreciating the submission of the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the afore-cited decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court placed by him, I would like to say that disputes contemplated in the Domestic Violence Act are really family disputes and in most of the cases such disputes are between the wife and husband. Law always encourages amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes. Incidentally it may be mentioned that Section 9 of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 as well as Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deal with conciliation and settlement of matrimonial disputes. Section 9 of the Family Court’s Act casts a duty on the Court to make an endeavour and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement.

8. It is clear from a con