Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act does not empower the court to strike off the defense of a spouse who fails to appear for reconciliation. The court must make genuine efforts for reconciliation, but the stage of trial for calling parties for reconciliation is left to the court's discretion.

1. Husband has filed this appeal under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short, the Act) against the judgment and decree dated July 23, 1992, whereby a decree of divorce is granted in favour of respondentwife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2. Admitted facts of the case are that the parties were married on August 13, 1988, at Jalandhar according to Hindu rites. Thereafter, they lived together at Fatehabad, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar. In this wedlock respondent gave birth to a female child on May 2, 1989.

3. In the divorce petition, respondentwife pleaded that soon after the marriage, appellant-husband threatened her with cruelty. She was tortured time and again by him and his parents on the count that her parents have not given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. Appellant-husband was addicted to vices and being intoxicated, he used to give her merciless beatings and abuse her. She was also threatened that she would be eliminated. She was not allowed to use her dowry articles and gold ornaments, which were kept by her husband and in-laws. Thus, these cruel acts of the husband and his family members caused mental agony to her. She averred that under those circumstances, it is not safe for her to live with the husband in the matrimonial home. The husband tortured her and asked her to bring Rs. 25,000/-, but she was unable to fulfil his desire. False allegations were levelled against her. Appellant-husband deserted her since January 30, 1989, without any reasonable cause or excuse for separate living. He met her for the last time on May 31, 1989, and made it very clear that he would not come and see her. Since January 30, 1989, she is residing in her parental home. Her husband never cared to enquire about her welfare. In the presence of the persons, named in the divorce petition, appellant-husband stated that he would not let her live in the matrimonial home. Thus, he has brought matrimonial relations permanently to an end. There is no possibility of any reconciliation. Hence, she claimed divorce.

4. On being noticed, appellant-husband filed written statement raising preliminary objection that as respondent-wife wants to take benefit of her own wrongs, her petition is not maintainable. He denied that he ever maltreated her or tortured or treated her with cruelty or asked her to bring more money or anything else. According to him, she was unable to adjust herself in the matrimonial home. She wanted to live with her parents at Jalandhar, to which he did not agree. On her own, she left the matrimonial home on January 28, 1991, without his consent. She has also taken away all her jewellery etc. as well as the minor child. He made attempts in May 1991 and July 1991 to bring her back, but she declined.

5. After filing of the replication by the wife, the lower Court adjourned the case for reconciliation. On three dates the husbandappellant did not appear for reconciliation. On May 13, 1992, the lower Court struck down his defence under S. 23(2) of the Act and without framing issues, adjourned the case for wife-respondents evidence, which was recorded on July 23, 1992, and on that very date, decree of divorce was granted.

6. Appellants learned counsel, relying on Smt. Kaniz Fatima V/s. Shah Naim Ashraf, AIR 1983 Allahabad 450 and U. Stoling Nonglang V/s. Ka Klin Lyngdoh Umiong, AIR 1982 Gauhati 83, contended that when the allegations made in the divorce petition were traversed by the appellant-husband, the Court was duty-bound to frame issues under O. 14, R. 1, Code of Civil Procedure. He also contended that only on three dates case was fixed for reconciliation, but as the petitionerhusband counsel did not inform him of any date so fixed, he could not appear before the matrimonial Court for the said purpose. His counsel never informed him of the progress of the case, therefore, the case proceeded ex parte and on the basis of his non-appearance in reconciliation proceedings, his defence was struck off an