The duty of reconciliation under Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not require the court to make efforts for reconciliation immediately preceding the grant of a decree, but rather at a time chosen by the court, consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case.

1. This is an appeal by one Jaswinder Kaur who stands divorced under the judgement and decree of the first matrimonial Court, whereby her marriage with Kulwant Singh was dissolved.

2. The marriage between the parties took place in December, 1971. They have a daughter who at present is living with the wife. The husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on September 17, 1979 from the first matrimonial Court, which was later on confirmed in appeal by the High Court on July 28, 1978. The decree having remained uncompelled with, gave a lever to the husband to move the first matrimonial Court in a petition under Section 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage as the said decree had remained uncompelled with for a period of more than one year. The petition was contested by the wife. According to her, she and her father and a few other persons approached the husband to settle her in his house but he declined her request, She repeated the attempt while the matter was pending in the High Court is appeal but the effort proved fruitless. In the presence of these two instances she drew the inference that the husband himself was at fault and thus was not entitled to a decree for divorce in the light of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the respondent resumed cohabitation after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights ?

2. Relief.

3. The Court came to the conclusion that it was evident from the admitted facts that there was no resumption of cohabitation between the parties and at best the allegation of the wife only confined to her suggested efforts to resume cohabitation with the husband fruitlessly. Even the suggested efforts by the wife were not believed by the Court and it was held that the evidence put forward by her was not satisfactory. On either situation and from whatever angle the matter was looked into, it was felt that there was no resumption of habitation so as to whittle down the effect of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, disentitling the husband, or for that matter either party, to obtain a decree for dissolution of marriage.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant raised two points - (1) that there was no effort made by the trial Court to effect a reconciliation between the parties incumbent on it under Section 23(2) of the Act, and (2) that the conduct of the husband in not permitting the rehabilitation of the wife in the matrimonial home would disentitle him to the relief claimed for under Section 23(1) of the Act.

5. On perusal of the file it appears that effort for reconciliation was made by the trial Court on 15th May, 1979 but the attempt proved abortive. Thereafter the issues were struck and the case proceeded towards finality. It, is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that this is not sufficient compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act, inasmuch as before granting the relief under the Act it was the duty of the Court in the first instance, consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to bring about reconciliation between the parties. Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act is being read in such manner by the learned counsel mean that reconciliation efforts have to be timed immediately preceding the grant of a decree and not at any other stage of the proceeding. In other words, the trial of the case should normally proceed towards finality and short of the pronouncement of the judgement, efforts of reconciliation should then be made. This however does not appear to be the intention of the Legislature. Efforts towards reconciliation cannot time short of the judgement and decree. Such timing of the effort would have to Vary from case to case. The Matrimonial Court, besides being a Court of law, has to decide matters and grant