Judgment Kan Singh, J.-This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’, by a wife against whom the learned District Judge has passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.

2. Theparties, who were. Hindus, were married according to Hindu rites on 4-5-65 (Baisakh Sudi 3, Samvat year 2022) at Jodh-pur. The husband averred that after the marriage was celebrated the wife did not live with him. He made several attempts to induce his in-laws to scad his wife, but they did not heed. He, therefore, made the application under Section 9 of the Act in the Court of the learned District Judge on 14-12-1968. The wife appeared to be a minor at the time the proceedings were commenced and, therefore, a guardian ad litem was appointed for her. The guardian ad litem resisted the application on a number of grounds. It was pleaded that there was no ‘Muklava’ ceremony and, therefore, the marriage was not complete and then there was bad blood between the parties on account of a beating administered by the husband to the wife and the in-laws. The guardian ad litem of the wife proceeded to say that there was a caste Panchayat at which the parties had divorced each other.

3. The learned District Judge framed the following issues :-

1. Has the respondent not performed the conjugal rights without any just and sufficient cause? Hence is the petitioner entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights?

2. Whether in pursuance of a custom prevalent amongst the community of the parties the petitioner dissolved the marriage by a divorce on 6th November, 1968?

3. (a) Is there any custom of Muklava in the community of the parties?

(b) If so, since Muklava ceremony was not performed the marriage between the parties was not complete?

4. Isthe petitioner not entitled to claim restitution of conjugal rights on the ground specified in para 12 of the written statement?

5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?” The parties led their respective evidence on these issues. The learned District Judge eventually held that there was no reasonable excuse for the wife to deny conjugal rights to her husband. Accordingly, the learned District Judge passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband and against the wife.

4. Thewife, became a major while the appeal was pending in this Court and accordingly on 5-3-1974 the guardian ad litem for the wife was discharged. Thereafter both the learned Counsel took time to explose the chances of settlement out of Court, but no settlement could be brought about in spite of earnest endeavours by both the learned Counsel.

5. Today when the appeal came up for hearing I enquired of learned Counsel if there was any effort for reconciliation by the trial Court. Learned Counsel agreed that there was no effort for reconciliation before trial Court.

6. Now Section 23 (2) of the Act lays down: “Section 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 cirumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties.” This section, therefore, clearly contemplates that the Court has a duty to try to bring about reconciliation in every case. Even cases where apparently there may be no chances of eventually bringing about a reconciliation are no exceptions.

7. In Chhote Lal vs. Kamla Devi, AIR 1967 Pat 269 it was observed that the law enjoins upon the Court a duty to make a sincere effort at reconciliation before proceeding to deal with the case in the usual course. In order that the requirement of making “every endeavour” is fulfilled it is at least requisite that the Courts should have a first hand version of the point of view of the lady from her own mouth so that the Court might be in a position to appreciate what really has led to the estrange

Click Here to Read the rest of this document