ANISH BHAN Vs. SONIKA BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil revision by the husband -respondent of the matrimonial case in the court below, is directed against an order by which the court below directed the husband to file objections, that is, proceeded with the suit.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 28(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1980, it is incumbent upon the court to bring about reconciliation between the parties and such endeavour has to be made in their personal presence. In the instant case, the parties were asked to appear in person. Whereas the husband appeared, the wife did not. Accepting the statement of the counsel for the wife that she is not agreeable for reconciliation, the court directed the husband to file objections. According to the petitioner the endeavour to bring about reconciliation is to be made at the very first instance and in the presence of the parties in person. Representation by the counsel is not enough in coming to the conclusion that reconciliation is not possible. Reliance is placed on Ram Kumar v. Kamla Dutta, AIR 1981 J&K 9 and Chhote Lal v. Kamla Devi & Ors., AIR 1967 Patna 269.

(3.) ON behalf of the wife -respondent, it was submitted that while it is true that the court is under obligation to make endeavour to bring about reconciliation, and it may also be true that such endeavour is to be made in personal presence of the parties, it is not the requirement of Section 28 of the Act that endeavour should be made at the beginning of the proceeding. Counsel pointed out that the proceeding in the court below is in the preliminary stage and by the impugned order the husband has merely been asked to file objections. The endeavour to bring about reconciliation can be made at later stage also, before passing the decree. The submission appears to be well founded. Section 28 of the Act, so far as it is relevant, may be quoted as under :