Dalela, J. - (1.) -The marriage of the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife), was solemnized on 2.12.1984, as per the Hindu custqms & rites. According to the appellant, after the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent, was not proper and she started causing cruelty towards the appellant and his family members. She filed a divorce-petition on 31.5.1988 and levelled all kinds of baseless and unscrupulous allegations, e.g., that the appellant was a drunkard; was a womanizer; and used to beat her etc. On 26.8.1988, the respondent moved an application before the learned Family Court, Jaipur, praying that she wanted to withdraw the petition for divorce. On the same date, the learned Family Court accepted the application and dismissed her petition for divorce, as withdrawn. The appellant took back the respondent in the matrimonial home and he tried to sort out the matter and attempted to work out a peaceful living together. Nevertheless, the respondent persisted wih her habits and behaviour, and ultimately, the, appellant filed a divorce-petition on 30.1.1993, before the learned District Court-Bharatpur, which was later on transferred to the learned Family Court, Jaipur. During the pendency of the said petition, an application for amendment, was moved for bringing on record, certain additional facts, with regard to the divorce-petition, filed earlier by the respondent. The amendment-application came to be allowed. The respondent challenged the order, allowing the amendment, in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 780/ 95, which was dismissed by this court, on 24.7.1995. The learned Family court, thereafter, passed the order/judgment dated 6.2.1997, whereby, the divorce-petition filed by the appellant, has been dismissed on the ground that although, the mental cruelty on the part of the respondent stood established, the appellant had, by living together with her upto the year 1992, condoned her acts of mentSl cruelty. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order/judgment of the learned Family Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.) We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also gone through the written-arguments, submitted by them.
(3.) The anxiety of the court to preserve the marriage-tie is good public policy, but, it is also the duty of the court to remedy as far as it can, the unhappy situation, in which, the young couple before it has placed itself. Even if a ground for relief is technically made out, it remains the duty of the court, to see that there is no other lawful ground for refusing relief in given case, relief may be refused on such lawful ground even if the ground on which the relief could be granted, has been made out. The jurisdiction of a matrimonial court is remedial and not punitive. The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and an ideal wife, but, with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial-court for, even if they may not be able to drawn their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures. In the case o/Dastanev. Dastane1,Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, "it is our duty, in view of the provisions of Section 23(l)(b), to find whether the cruelty was condoned by the appellant. That Section casts an obligation on the court, to consider the question of condonation, an obligation which has to be discharged even in undefended-cases. The relief prayed for, can be decreed only if the court is satisfied, but not otherwise that the appellant has not in any manner, condoned the cruelty.";