The court emphasized the importance of preserving marriages and the need for Family Courts to make genuine efforts to reconcile the parties before granting a decree of divorce.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22-4-1997 passed by Shri B. D. S. Srivastava, Judge, Family Court, Varanasi by which the Judge, Family Court, Varanasi had decided two cases :- (i) Case No. 268 of 1995 Rajesh v. Kumud - Application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. The said application was dismissed by the aforesaid order. (ii) Case No. 316 of 1995 Kumud v. Rajesh - Application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The said application was allowed by the aforesaid judgment and decree.

( 2 ) IT may be mentioned at the very outset that the appellant husband had moved application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 26-9-1995. The wife respondent moved an application under Section 13 of the Act on 9-11-1995.

( 3 ) IN order to understand the controversy in the present appeal the following few facts are necessary. Parents are keen to marry their daughter and of course it is their moral and pious duty to do so. Later on after marriage it is generally found that there is difference of upbringing between the two families which brings clash of ego. Then there is wreckage of holy tie. Fortunately in this case the background of both the families is service. Unfortunately the husband was studying in B. Sc. when the marriage was performed with the respondent wife. The wife is also literate as revealed from the meeting in Chamber and she has done B. Sc. The appellant-husband is still studying Law in Banaras Hindu University and is unemployed. Employment is also a big factor in destabilising the marriages. The marriage took place on 26-6-1988 in village Chandvak, District Jaunpur. Father of the appellant-husband belongs to Varanasi.

( 4 ) THE plea of the appellant husband in the petition under Section 9 of the Act in brief is that at the instance of relations of husband "gauna" took place on 10-5-1989 in presence of relatives of both the sides. The respondent-wife stayed for two months. It has been stated by the appellant that he has been performing conjugal rights and the marriage has been consumated. It is pleaded by the husband-appellant that on 7-7-1989 the respondent-wife left the house of the appellant-husband with ornaments and other costly items and gifts etc. for the house of her parents stating that she will return after a month but she never came back. It is also averred that after making requests by the appellant-husband and his parents she did not come. It is further stated by the appellant-husband that the wife-respondent left his home on the ground that she was not kept with dignity and due honour. It is further stated by the appellant husband that he is ready to keep his wife with proper honour and dignity which is given to a wife but it appears that she is not willing to resume his company without any sufficient cause and as such he has moved an application under Section 9 of the Act.

( 5 ) THE case of the wife is that the marriage was performed and she went to the house of the husband and stayed there for thirteen months. She has introduced a case that she was not liked by the husband and his near relations i. e. father, sister etc. on the ground that she has not brought dowry. There was constant demand of T. V. , V. C. R. etc. She has gone to the extent that she was not given food and she was on the verge of starvation and she was turned out from the marital home and was advised not to come unless she brings dowry. In other words her case is that she was not treated fairly and was tortured physically and mentally and no offence were made for six years and six months by close relatives of husband i. e. father, sister etc. to take her back. She has moved an application under Section 13 of the Act for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. She has denied the version of the husband that marriage was consummated duri