Court must attempt reconciliation in matrimonial disputes before granting relief, and non-cooperation by a party can justify rejection of conciliatory proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

K.R.MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to set aside the order dated 16th January, 2023 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jharsuguda in CP No.91 of 2022, wherein an application filed by the Petitioner praying inter alia to post the matter for further conciliation between the parties, has been rejected observing that the parties themselves by their conduct have shown disinclination towards reconciliation, despite efforts by the Court and the counselor.

3. Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that CP No.91 of 2022 was registered on the file of learned Judge, Jharsuguda on being transferred from Family Court, Jaipur, Rajasthan pursuant to direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2226 of 2019. After the matter was received by the Family Court, Jharsuguda, the Petitioner-Wife is making sincere attempts for reconciliation in the matter. But the learned Judge, Family Court did not take that matter seriously. It is his submission that Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) provides that before proceeding to grant any relief under the 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 circumstances of the case, to make every endevaour to bring about reconciliation between the parties. He further draws attention of this Court to Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Rule 18 of the Family Courts (Court) Rules, 2010 and submits that attempt for conciliation between the parties plays a vital role in a proceeding before the Family Court. Hence, all endeavours should be made for reconciliation of the dispute between the parties.

3.1 In support of his contention, Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Kaur v. Hardeep Singh , reported in AIR 1998 SC 764 , wherein it is held that a duty is cast on the Court in the first instance, in every case to make endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. The Court can even refer the matter to any person named by the parties for the purpose of reconciliation and to adjourn the matter for that purpose. These objectives and principles govern all Courts trying matrimonial matters. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Jagraj Singh vs Birpal Kaur , reported in AIR 2007 SC 2083 and submits that the Court should not give up the efforts for reconciliation merely on the ground that there is no chance for reconciliation. It is the duty of the Court to make sincere endeavour for reconciliation. He further submits an attempt for reconciliation between the parties should be made in the beginning and not at the end of the matrimonial proceeding. The matrimonial Court besides being a Court of law has to decide matters and grant relief thereon in a very sensitive field. If an endeavour for conciliation is not made, the order would be illegal. The intention of the Parliament requires the Court in the first instance to make reconciliation between the parties. In the light of the said intention and paramount consideration an order can be passed by a matrimonial Court asking a party to the proceeding to remain personally present. He also relied upon the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs D. A. Deepa , reported in 2013 (1) CLR (SC) 853, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court discussing Section 9 of the Famil