ORDER :- This revisional application is directed against the order dated 29-10-1971 passed by the learned District Judge, Varanasi in the case No. 2 of 1971 which has been filed by the applicant claiming a decree against the Opposite Party No. 1 for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. On 14th April, 1971, the applicant filed an application before the court below praying that the Opposite Party No. 1 be directed to produce herself for reconciliation and to produce herself before the lady Doctor of Civil Hospital, Varanasi for her medical examination. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed an objection to the said application on 15-5-1971. She alleged inter alia that as there had been "chhuttam chutta" (perhaps meaning thereby 'divorce') between the parties the applicant was not entitled to have the medical examination of the Opposite Party No. 1. It was, however, not alleged in her aforesaid objection that she would not appear before the Court in connection with the proposed reconciliation proceedings. On 23-7-1971 the learned District Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties directed the applicant and the Opposite Party No. 1 to be present in person on the next date of hearing which was fixed for 27-8-1971. The case could not, however, be taken up on 27-8-1971 and it was adjourned to 24-9-1971. As the parties were not present in person on 24-9-1971 the case was adjourned to 29-10-1971 for disposal of the aforesaid application and objection and for issues and the parties were required to be present in person. On 29-10-1971 when the case was taken up the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 stated that there were absolutely no chances for reconciliation whereupon the learned District Judge ordered that the attendance of the Opposite Party No. 1 in court would not be necessary and he recalled his previous order in this behalf. It is this part of the order of the Court below which is being impugned in this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it was the duty of the court below to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties but it failed in the performance of its duty by not requiring the Opposite Party No. 1 to appear in person before the Court. It was urged that in the matter of reconciliation the Opposite Party No. 1 should have been directed to appear in person before the court so that the question of reconciliation should have been taken directly with her and the matter should not have been dropped merely on the statement of her counsel. It was, however, argued on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1, that the statement of her counsel in that behalf was quite sufficient and keeping in view the nature and circumstances of the case the court below was justified in not directing her to appeal in person before the Court. The contention of the Opposite Party No. 1, is, however, not tenable. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides :-

"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 to do so consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties."

In view of this provision of law, it is the duty of the trial Court to make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties. This duty is to be performed consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case. The object behind this provision is to provide all help in the maintenance of marital ties and restoration of peace to the estranged couple. Emphasis is, however, laid that steps for bringing about reconciliation between the parties should be taken by the Court "in the first instance." In other words, the endeavour should be made right from the start of the case. This does not, however, mean that the attempt for bringing about reconc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document