The court emphasized the duty of the Family Court to make endeavors for settlement in matrimonial disputes and the mandatory conciliation in all sorts of matrimonial disputes as per the Family Court Act, 1984.

R.R. Prasad, J.

1. This Matrimonial Appeal filed u/s 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order dated 10.5.2016 and decree dated 16.5.2016 passed by the Family Court, Manipur in Mat. (Decl) Suit No. 40 of 2014 whereby and where under the marriage in between the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant held on 17.2.2014 was annulled by the decree of nullity.

2. The defendant-respondent brought a Matrimonial Suit being Mat. (Decl) No. 40 of 2014 against the plaintiff-appellant for annulling the marriage solemnised in between the defendant and plaintiff on 17.2.2014 by a decree of nullity by making out a case that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in sub-section (ii) (c) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act on account of the fact that the wife (defendant-appellant) was having recurrent attack of insanity.

3. Since the issue involved in this case is as such which does not warrant case of the plaintiff-respondent as made out, be narrated in detail. It would suffice to state that the plaintiff-appellant sought marriage solemnised in between the plaintiff and the defendant annulled on the ground that before and after the marriage, she has been suffering from mental illness and is having recurrent attack of insanity.

4. Upon institution of the suit, notice was issued to the wife-defendant appellant. The summon, as per the record, was served upon one Lilabati, sister in-law, as per the report of the Process Server, when the defendant-appellant was not found to be present in home. The said service of summon upon the wife-defendant was accepted to be valid and thereby the Court proceed with the matter ex-parte when wife-defendant failed to appear in the case whereby the plaintiff adduced evidences. On closure of the case, the Family Court upon finding the case, made out of defendant having recurrent attack of insanity being proved, declared the marriage as annulled by a decree of nullity. The order and decree annulling the marriage in between the plaintiff and the defendant as nullity is under challenge.

5. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by referring to the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 89 and order XXXIIA of the CPC as well as Section 9 of the Family Court Act, submits that duty has been cast upon the Family Court to make endeavour to have settlement in between the parties in a matrimonial dispute and thereby it becomes quite onerous on the part of the Family Court to satisfy fully that the summon has been served when party failed to put appearance pursuant to summon issued to him/her. In the instant case, the Court seems to have had casual approach in accepting the service report as without ascertaining the relationship in between the person who received the summon on behalf of the defendant and the fact whether she was living in the house together or that whether the person received summon was an adult member accepted the service report and proceeded with the ex-parte hearing and then passed the order and decree for annulment of the marriage and thereby it committed wrong.

6. Learned counsel, in this regard, further highlighted that service report shows that summon was served upon one Lilabati when the defendant was not found in home and said Lilabati is said to be the sister-in-law of the defendant but the defendant does not have any sister in-law named as Lilabati. In such event, any acceptance of service of notice and proceeding with the ex-parte hearing was quite erroneous whereby it has resulted into miscarriage of justice and hence the impugned order and decree is fit to be set aside.

7. As against this Mr. Th. Mahira, learned counsel for the defendant submits that it is wrong on the part of the Process Server to record Lilabati as sister in-law of the defendant rather Lilabati residing in the same house happens to be the younger sister of the defendant and thereby the court rightly accepted the service of