- (1.) No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite valid service of notice. We have heard Counsel for the appellant. By the impugned order dated 07.05.2016, the Family Judge, Dausa has dismissed Petition No. 78/2015 filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) It appears that without asking the respondent to file a reply and recording the evidence of both sides dissatisfied with the developments that may have taken place before the Court under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Judge prematurely determined the fate of the Section 9 application under the Act as not being bona fide. Even if the provisions of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable and evidence can be taken on affidavit also nonetheless Section 15 of the Family Court Act does visualise examination of the witnesses.
(3.) From the order-sheet it also appears that the parties did not have legal representation. In our opinion, in such a circumstance the role of the Family Judge was much more crucial not only to bring about rapprochement between the parties but also called for much more sensitivity than that displayed in the impugned order and a pragmatic approach so that ultimately the purpose of the Family Courts Act was fulfilled.;