Decided on April 06,1983



A.P. Ravani, J. - (1.) The appellant-original opponent in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 230 of 1978 of the Court of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (5th Court) on September 24, 1979.
(2.) The respondent original petitioner filed the petition praying that the decree of divorce he granted on the ground that his wife (the appellant herein) is guilty of cruelty. It was alleged by the opponent that the marriage between the parties took place some time in the year 1976, and thereafter the behaviour of the opponent was such that every now and then she picked" up quarrels with himself and with the family members and made the atmosphere of the entire house unhappy. He gave certain particulars with regard to the acts of cruelty in the petition. The appellant-wife was served with a summons and appeared through an advocate. However, it appears from the proceedings of the case that one Mr. K. S. Chaudhari, advocate had appeared on behalf of the appellant on March 13, 1979 and prayed for adjournment for filing written statement. The Court adjourned the case to April 17, 1979. Again on that day the advocate for the opponent asked for time to file written statement and the case was adjourned to April 24, 1979. On that day again a prayer for adjournment was made but the same was rejected by the Court and the proceeding of April 24, 1979 reads as under:- "Opponent's application for time to file written statement- Rejected. Hence the suit is undefended." Thereafter the suit was adjourned to September 6, 1979, and on that day it was adjourned on the ground that the petitioner's advocate was sick. The case was then adjourned to September 14, 1979, and on that day the evidence was recorded, and ultimately, the trial Court after recording the evidence of the petitioner delivered the judgment on September 24, 1979 and granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-original petitioner.
(3.) In matrimonial proceedings it is the bounded duty of the Court rather a duty imposed by the statute, to make endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read as follows:-- "(2) 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 so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the ease, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties : Provided that nothing contained in this Sub-section shall apply to any proceedings wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in Clause (ii), Clause (iii), Clause (iv), Clause (4), Clause (vi) or Clause (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13." In-this case it is very clear that the petition is based on the ground of cruelty i. e. ground mentioned in Clause (i-a) of Clause (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This is not one of the grounds mentioned in the Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.