Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed by the wife Pramila Bhagat against the judgment and decree dt. 14-5-1983 whereby the Court below dissolved her marriage with the respondent. 2. It is the admitted case that the parties were married with each other on 9-4-1969 under the Special Marriages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and two sons were born to them out of this wedlock. On 22-1-1982 they filed a joint petition under S.28 of the Special Marriage Act stating therein that they have been living apart since Aug., 1980 and that due to incompatibility of temperament it is no longer possible for them to continue to live together as husband and wife. They therefore by mutual agreement sought for dissolution of the marriage. 3. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the judgment and decree of the Court below were passed without complying with the mandatory provision of sub-sec.(2) of S.34 of the Special Marriage Act and as such the case has to be remanded for fresh trial in accordance with law. No doubt the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed jointly on the ground mentioned in S.28 of the Act and is covered by Cl.C of sub-sec.(1) of S.34 of the Act, but nevertheless endeavour by the Court to bring about reconciliation between the parties has to be made before the trial is taken up and the decree for dissolution of the marriage is passed. It was contended that it will make no difference as regards compliance of S.34(2) whether the trial is a contested one or whether the judgment and decree are to be passed on a joint petition of the parties. I think this submission is correct. Even if the dissolution of marriage is sought by a joint petition of the parties, still it is incumbent on the Court to comply with the mandatory provisions of S.34(2) of the Act and the Court has to make endeavour to bring reconciliation between the parties. If such an endeavour is made, there is still chance that the parties even though may have initially mutually agreed for dissolution of their marriage through a joint petition, may retrace their step and an afterthought may abstain from taking the extreme step of separation from each other. If such an endeavour is made, there is still chance that the parties even though may have initially mutually agreed for dissolution of their marriage through a joint petition, may retrace their step and an afterthought may abstain from taking the extreme step of separation from each other. Such a probability will be all the more in cases where there are children to look after. 4. The order sheet of the Court below or even the impugned judgment, does not indicate that at any stage after filing of joint petition by the parties, any endeavour for reconciliation had been made by the Court in accordance with S.34(2) of the Act. In this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent had no option but to fairly concede that due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of sub-sec.(2) of S.34, the judgment and decree of the Court below suffer from legal infirmity and are not sustainable. 5. For the reasons stated above, the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The case is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Obviously after remand, the Court below will give notice to both the parties about the date fixed for hearing in the case, as it appears that both of them are residing out of Ranchi at present. 6. The position regarding the custody of the two children and the right of each party to have an access to the child living with the other party will continue as before, until it is modified by the Court below by any order in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs.