- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed against an order granting maintenance to the op posite parties. The impugned order was passed on 30-9-1998 by the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. The only argument advanced before me is that the trial Court has wrong ly discarded the defence evidence with regard to the marriage. The ground for discarding the evidence, which are papers No. 6/3 and 6/7 on record of the lower Court, is that in the written statement it had been stated that the marriage had taken place at Lucknow, but the docu ments, pertaining to the marriage, indicate that it had taken place at Unnao. The judgment does not clarify as to whether they were certified copies obtained from the Court and filed before the Court con cerned. In my opinion the trial Court was not justified in rejecting these documents on the solitary plea that in the written statement place of marriage has been shown as Lucknow, whereas documents pertaining to marriage indicate that the marriage having been solemnised in Civil Court, Unnao.
(3.) UNDER these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Court below for reconsideration of the validity of these documents. As passing remark, it will be pertinent to mention that the Family Court may initiate reconciliation proceeding between the warring parties. The order does not show any such attempt having been made by him. It is always to the benefit of the life of the family and social justice requires such an effort to be made by Courts. With these observations, the revision is allowed and the case is remanded back to the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, for a fresh decision in the mat ter. The trial Court is directed to afford opportunity to the applicant, who hap pens to be the respondent before it, to prove these documents in accordance with law. The case shall be decided very ex-peditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned counsel forthe applicant has undertaken to produce the copy within a week from its receipt by him, before the Court below. Revision allowed. .;