Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

1. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 31st of March, 2010 passed in Civil Suit No.1-A/2008 by the Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G., the plaintiff has filed this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the suit filed u/S 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed by the Family Court.

2. The appellant/plaintiff (husband) filed a suit u/S 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce. Precisely there were allegations of cruelty against the respondent (wife) and also that she had deserted him since long back so as to give rise to a cause of action to file above Civil Suit.

3. Respondent (wife) filed her written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. She also raised plea regarding her ill-treatment by the appellant and further regarding harassment on account of demand of dowry. She also pleaded that a criminal complaint in this regard was lodged by her.

4. It appears from the record that thereafter the issues were not framed and the learned Judge of Family Court called upon the parties to adduce their evidence by filing affidavits under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The plaintiff filed affidavits of 4 witnesses namely Subhash @ Prakash (AW-l - plaintiff himself), Balram (AW-2), Bridhiram (AW-3) and Satyanand (AW-4). The defendant also filed affidavits of herself as NAW 1, Pardashi (NAW-2) and Smt. Radha Bai (NAW-3). The proceedings of 13.5.2009 would show that the defendant had expressed that she was not willing to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff, however, it does not appear on record that the plaintiff was also granted opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendant or that the plaintiff had expressed that he also does not want to cross-examine those witnesses. Even no such endorsement in the affidavits or the deposition sheet is there on record.

6. The learned Judge Family Court, thereafter, fixed the matter for final hearing, heard both the parties and passed the impugned judgment dismissing the suit:

Hence this appeal.

7. Mr. T.R. Dahire, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, has argued that the learned Judge Family Court committed gross illegality by not framing issues; even the points raised in the judgment for determination were not properly framed; that a part, the appellant was not granted opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent/defendant, therefore, the judgment and decree cannot be sustained.

8. Having heard counsel for the appellant, we have perused the records of the Family Court.

9. The first question is, "Whether it was mandatory for the Family Court to frame issues?"

10. Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act or Act, 1984) is titled as 'Procedure generally'. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 provides that subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such court. Further Clause (e) of Section 2 defines that unless the context otherwise requires, all other words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code. Section 11 to Section 16 provides about procedure generally to be adopted and Section 17 provides about judgment. It provides that judgment of a Family Court shall contain a concise statement of the case, the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.

11. The object of framing Family Courts Act, 1984 was for speedy settlement o