KURIAN JOSEPH, J. :-The need for and role of conciliation for reconciliation and settlement in disputes relating to marriage and family affairs pending before the Family Courts is the crux of the subject matter arising in this appeal. In the process a noval question to be decided is whether conciliation is mandatory after the introduction of the Family Courts Act even on the excepted grounds of conversion to another religion renunciation of the world mental disorder venereal diseases and leprosy.

2. The respondent-husband approached the Family Court. Thrissur under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 seeking a decree of divorce on the ground that the appellant-wife had ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. On appearance of the appellant and on the mere admission of. such fact, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce. Aggrieved, the appeal at the instance of the wife contending mainly that by conversion to another religion alone the marriage does not ipso facto get dissolved and that the Family Court should have made an attempt to see whether a reconciliation or settlement is yet possible in the matter.

3. The Family Courts Act, 1984 was introduced to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is stated thus :

"Several associations of woman, other organizations and individuals have urged, from time to time, that Family Courts be set up for the settlement of family disputes, where emphasis should be laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated. The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) had also stressed that in dealing with disputes concerning the family the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 to provide for a special procedure to be adopted in suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family. However, not much use has been made by the courts in adopting this conciliatory procedure and the Courts continue to deal with family disputes in the same manner as other civil matters and the same adversary approach prevails. The need was, therefore, felt, in the public interest, to establish Family Courts for speedy settlement of family disputes" It is further stated that the Bill was intended "to make it obligatory on the part of the Family Court to endeavour in the first instance to effect a reconciliation or a settlement between the parties to a family dis. During this stage, the proceedings will be informal and the rigid rules of procedure shall not apply." It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing the law relating to Family Courts that in dealing with the disputes regarding family affairs the first attempt of resolution of such disputes should be by conciliation. so as to enable the parties to have reconciliation or settlement. It is with that object in mind only. it was provided under Section 13 of the Act that a legal practitioner shall not be entitled to represent the parties as a matter of right. In dealing with the procedure before the Family Court it was made obligatory on the part of the Family Court to make every endeavour in the first instance to assist and persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court. If there is a reasonable possibility of settlement or' the disputes between the parties. the Family Court is bound to adjourn the proceedings for such period in order to facilitate attempts for reconciliation or settlement. To the extent relevant Section 9 reads as follows :

"9.