Skip to content


Ram Kumar Vs. Kamla Dutta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtJammu and Kashmir High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 123 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1981J& K9
ActsHindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 23(2)
AppellantRam Kumar
RespondentKamla Dutta
Appellant AdvocateParty in person
Respondent Advocate T.C. Kotwal, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredChhote Lal v. Kamla Devi
Excerpt:
- .....the court observed :'the important words in sub-section (2) are that it shall be the 'duty of the court' in the first instance in every case where it is possible to do so, 'to make every endeavour' to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. in my judgment, the law enjoins upon the court to make a sincere effort at reconciliation before proceeding to deal with the case in the usual course.'i am in respectful agreement with these observations. in this view i agree with the contention of the petitioner that the lower court should have tried for reconciliation before asking him to file the objections. the order to the contrary made by the lower court is clearly erroneous, and must be set aside. so also the order dated 19-11-1979, where-by costs were imposed upon the petitioner for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mufti Baha-ud-Din Farooqi, Ag. C.J.

1. The petitioners grievance is that the court below is insisting on him to file objections without first trying for reconciliation, as it should have. For this he relies upon Section 23 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This sub-section fell for consideration in Chhote Lal v. Kamla Devi, AIR 1967 Pat 269. The court observed :

'The important words in Sub-section (2) are that it shall be the 'duty of the Court' in the first instance in every case where it is possible to do so, 'to make every endeavour' to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. In my judgment, the law enjoins upon the Court to make a sincere effort at reconciliation before proceeding to deal with the case in the usual course.'

I am in respectful agreement with these observations. In this view I agree with the contention of the petitioner that the lower court should have tried for reconciliation before asking him to file the objections. The order to the contrary made by the lower court is clearly erroneous, and must be set aside. So also the order dated 19-11-1979, where-by costs were imposed upon the petitioner for non-filing of the objections.

2. The result, therefore, is that this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 8-11-1979 and 19-11-1979 are set aside and the lower court is directed to make a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //