JUDGMENT SURINDER SARUP, J.—This appeal has been filed by the wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri Govind Sharma, District Judge, Solan, dated 27.3.1996, resulting out of the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the husband-respondent, Major Atul Mehta, which has been accepted and a decree of divorce stands passed in his favour and against the wife who is appellant before this Court. 2. The respondent filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act on the pleadings that he and the appellant were married on 28.9.1984 and thereafter they lived at Subathu, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. From the wedlock of the parties, a son and a daughter were born. As the appellant and the respondent were studying in the same college, for this reason they were known to each other. They went for their honeymoon to Sikkim. Thereafter the respondent was told by the appellant that she had married him out of deference for her fathers wish, otherwise she did not like him. 3. According to the respondent, after the honeymoon, the appellant proceeded to her parents house at Shamli in U.P., while the respondent did his army duties at a high altitude. The grand-mother of the respondent died on 23.10.1984, but the appellant did not come to Solan to her in-laws house to mourn on account of death. In the year 1985, the respondent was posted at Delhi. By that time, the father of the appellant had been transferred to Chandigarh. She started neglecting the respondent as well as his parents. She also used to quarrel with him. Thereafter the respondent was transferred to a non-family station again at a high altitude in January, 1989, therefore, he could not take his wife with him. As the appellant was to stay at Solan at her in-laws house, but she refused to do so. Instead of it, she went to Chandigarh to stay with her parents. So-much-so, he got her son Master Karan admitted in School at Chandigarh instead of Solan. Even when the respondent came on casual leave to Solan, on that occasion also, the appellant refused to join him i.e. in November, 1989. She took a job in D.A.V. School, Sector-8, Chandigarh against the wishes of the respondent. 4. So-much-so, he got her son Master Karan admitted in School at Chandigarh instead of Solan. Even when the respondent came on casual leave to Solan, on that occasion also, the appellant refused to join him i.e. in November, 1989. She took a job in D.A.V. School, Sector-8, Chandigarh against the wishes of the respondent. 4. According to the allegations in the divorce petition, the appellant indulged in acts of humiliation and started insulting the respondent. As a result of this, the respondent developed a psychiatric problem due to mental stress and strain. Perforce, he had to be admitted for treatment at Army Command Hospital, Chandigarh. He was diagnosed as suffering from depression. However, the appellant did not care for him even when he was under treatment in the hospital. 5. In January 1989, the respondent was posted at Chandimandir. He hired a residence near the residence of his in-laws. However, there was no change or improvement in the behaviour and conduct of the appellant towards the respondent. She continued to be very aggressive towards him. Other graphic details of the alleged mental cruelty of the appellant towards the respondent have been given in the divorce petition, which are not needed to be stated here. Suffice it to say that having suddenly neglected the respondent and deserted him in March, 1983, ultimately she capped it all by making a false complaint against him to the General Officer Commanding, Army Headquarters, New Delhi. She falsely complained therein that she had been forcibly assaulted by the respondent i.e. her husband and that he was not supporting her and children. She went to the extent that she made a false complaint against the respondent about adultery with rich women and she gave an instance of a liaison with some lady at Subathu. 6. On the basis of the above complaints, a letter was received by the respondent from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, for comments. 7. On these pleadings, the respondent pleaded for divorce. 8. In the written statement, the appellant-wife denied the allegations levelled against her by the respondent-husband. She denied that her behaviour was disrespectful or unwarranted towards him, instead of it, she alleged that it was the respondent who was guilty of misbehaviour with her. 7. On these pleadings, the respondent pleaded for divorce. 8. In the written statement, the appellant-wife denied the allegations levelled against her by the respondent-husband. She denied that her behaviour was disrespectful or unwarranted towards him, instead of it, she alleged that it was the respondent who was guilty of misbehaviour with her. So much so, she had to file a complaint under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. According to the written statement, the respondent and his parents were facing trial in that Court for allegedly committing the said offence. 9. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :— (1) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged? OPP (2) If issue No. (1) is proved in favour of the petitioner whether he is entitled to a decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage? OPP (3) Relief. 10. After giving the findings on issue No. (1) in the affirmative, the learned trial Court below granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband, as aforementioned. 11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have gone through the record with their assistance. 12. At the outset, it must be mentioned that though the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge, Solan is fairly a detailed one, but there is hardly any discussion of the evidence led by the parties, more particularly the oral evidence. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent examined himself as PW-1 before the trial Court. His examination and cross-examination runs into 14 hand-written pages in Hindi, but there is hardly and discussion or reference of the same in the impugned judgment. Similarly, PW-2 Brigadier Ashok Nagpal does not find any mention in the impugned judgment nor there is any appreciation of his statement. PW-3 O.N. Sharrna also met with the same fate at the hands of the learned District Judge, Solan. PW-4 ASI Parvez Iqbal and PW-5 Baldev Raj were also ignored by the learned District Judge, Solan. 13. On behalf of the appellant-wife, she examined herself as RW-1. Her statement is also a detailed one, but it is not discussed in the impugned judgment. 14. PW-4 ASI Parvez Iqbal and PW-5 Baldev Raj were also ignored by the learned District Judge, Solan. 13. On behalf of the appellant-wife, she examined herself as RW-1. Her statement is also a detailed one, but it is not discussed in the impugned judgment. 14. Apart from the above, there is voluminous documentary evidence produced before the Court below by both the parties. Same has also not been touched. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the only piece of evidence referred to in paragraph No. 19 therein is a copy of complaint Ex. PA alleged to have been made by the appellant against the character of her husband i.e. respondent. This was made to the General Officer Commanding, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, by her. 15. Apart from that solitary piece of documentary evidence, there is no discussion or appreciation of evidence on record of both the parties whatsoever. 16. It needs to be stressed here that the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings in the trial of the petition under the Act. The learned District Judge, Solan, being the trial Judge in the present case was legally duty bound to discuss and appreciate the evidence, both oral and documentary led by the parties. This is not a mere formality, the absence of which can be deemed as an irregularity not vitiating the proceedings etc., but is a mandatory provision of law. Otherwise, not only are the parties in such proceedings deprived of a fair trial, but the appellate Court also on appeal being taken by the aggrieved party in such proceedings does not have the benefit of the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court. 17. In the above context, it also needs to be stressed that the trial Court alone has the benefit and advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses examined before him by the parties in matrimonial proceedings. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the learned District Judge, Solan has not only failed to discharge his legal, onerous and mandatory duty, but its complete failure to discuss and appreciate the evidence has resulted in injustice to both the parties. 18. Faced with the above situation, Shri Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent was at pains to stress that being the appellate Court, we ourselves should go into evidence and record. 18. Faced with the above situation, Shri Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent was at pains to stress that being the appellate Court, we ourselves should go into evidence and record. We are afraid that this contention of Shri Kuldip Singh cannot be accepted, for the reasons already stated above. Moreover, if such a course is adopted, it would render the mandatory procedure nugatory as also encourage non-appreciation of evidence by the Court of the first instance in such proceedings in other cases, as it would have the effect of setting a wrong precedent. 19. In fairness to Shri Kuldip Singh, he has cited a number of authorities. They may briefly be noticed as such:— (1) Kamaljit Bhullar v. Nimrat Preet Singh Bhullar (1991 (1) Shim. L.C. 156). (2) Smt Neera v. Kishan Swarup (AIR 1975 Allahabad 337). (3) Somasekharan Nair v. Thankamma (AIR 1988 Kerala 308). (4) Kukesh Kumar Gupta v. Smt Kamini Gupta (AIR 1984 Delhi 368). (5) Smt Saintri Balchandani v. Mulchand Balchandani (AIR 1987 Delhi 52). (6) Sh. Ashok Sharma v. Smt Santosh Sharma (AIR 1987 Delhi 63). 20. In the view we have taken above, the authorities cited by Shri Kuldip Singh are clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. Since we propose to remand the case for the aforesaid reasons, we have refrained from expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the respective contentions/pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them. It will be for the Court of the District Judge, Solan, now to do so in the light of the observations contained above. 21. For the reasons recorded above, allowing this appeal, we set aside the impugned judgment of the District Judge, Solan, dated 27.3.1996. Further, we remand the case to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained above and in accordance with the evidence already on record led by the parties. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs of this appeal. Parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge, Solan on 13th July, 1998. Appeal allowed.