Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. Respondent Smt. Anju Bhatta, wife of appellant Jayesh Thakur filed an application under Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce. The ground for divorce was cruelty. Notice on the application was issued to the appellant. Notice was received by the appellant but he did not appear to contest the case. The appellant appeared on 11-9-1995 and filed a petition for time. The case was adjourned to 4-11-1995. On that date, i.e. 4-11-1995 the respondent was present. The appellant was absent. The appellant had filed an application for recalling of the order of listing the case for ex parte hearing. The petition was not moved and no order was passed on the application, the case was adjourned to 5-12-1995 for ex parte hearing. On 5-12-1995 also the appellate was absent. Counsel did not move the application filed earlier for recall of order of ex parte hearing. On 3-2-1996 the Court concerned fixed the case for ex parte hearing on 11-3-1996. On 20-4-1996 the case was taken up for hearing in absence of the appellant. The witnesses were examined on the said date. On 4-5-1996 also another set of witnesses were examined. The appellant was not present. On 7-10-1996 the appellant filed an application to the effect that he could not appear due to illness. The appellant prayed for acceptance of their written statement. 2. The learned Judge on hearing the parties and by a reasoned order held that the appellant Jayesh Thakar was deliberately avoiding to appear in the case. The learned Judge ordered that the case shall proceed on 3-12-1996, a petition was filed on behalf of the appellant to the effect that he may be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses adduced on behalf of the respondent. The learned Judge did not find any merit in the application and accordingly rejected it and on the same day delivered the judgment in favour of the respondent. The Judge passed the decree of divorce. 3. This appeal has been preferred under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the decree dated 3-12-1996 passed in favour of the respondent is null and void since the family Court did not comply with the mandatory provision contained in Sec. 23(2) of the Family Courts Act. 4. 3. This appeal has been preferred under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the decree dated 3-12-1996 passed in favour of the respondent is null and void since the family Court did not comply with the mandatory provision contained in Sec. 23(2) of the Family Courts Act. 4. Shri Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that since the appellant had appeared and filed an application for recalling of order of ex parte hearing. It was incumbent upon the Family Court Judge to try reconciliation. Sec. 9 of the Family Courts Act is part materia with Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Sec. 9 of the Family Courts Act reads as follows: 9. Duty of Family Court to make efforts for settlement-(1) In every suit or proceeding, endeavour shall be made by the Family Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding and for this purpose a Family Court may subject to any rules made by the High Court following such procedure as it: may deem fit. (2) If, in any suit or proceeding, at any stage, it appears to the Family Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Family Court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement. (3) The power conferred by Sub-sec. (2) shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any other power of the Family Court to adjourn the proceedings. 5. Shri Kalyan Roy relied on a decision of Sushma Kumari V/s. Om Prakash -- in support of his contention and submitted that the Court did not make effort for reconciliation and the order of Family Court granting decree in favour of the respondent was invalid. 6. In V.K. Gupta V/s. Nirmala Gupta 1980 Hindu LR 290, dealing with a case of divorce under the Act, the Supreme Court made the following observations: It is fundamental that reconciliation of a ruptured marriage is the first essay of the Judge, aided by Counsel in this noble adventure. 6. In V.K. Gupta V/s. Nirmala Gupta 1980 Hindu LR 290, dealing with a case of divorce under the Act, the Supreme Court made the following observations: It is fundamental that reconciliation of a ruptured marriage is the first essay of the Judge, aided by Counsel in this noble adventure. The sanctity of marriage is, in essence, the foundation of civilisation and therefore, Court and Counsel owe a duty to society to strain to the utmost repair the snapped relations between the parties. This task becomes more insistent when an innocent offspring of the wedding struggles in between the disputed parents. In the present case, there is a child, quite young, the marriage itself being young. It has been observed that it is the duty of the Court as well as the Counsel for the parties to try reconciliation. That was a case where a divorce petition was dismissed by the trial Court and the High Court and the matter was before the Supreme Court when reconciliation was attempted and it appears that parties reconciled. The reconciliation of ruptured marriage is the foremost duty of the Judge and the Counsel. 7. In ChhoteLal V/s. Kamla Devi -- , it has been held as follows: The law enjoins upon the Court a duty to make a sincere effort at reconciliation before proceeding to deal with the case in the usual course. The following observations have also been made in this judgment: In order that the requirement of making "every endeavour" is fulfilled IT IS AT LEAST requisite that the Courts should have a first hand version of the point of view of the lady from her own mouth so that the Court might be in a position to appreciate what really has led to the estrangement between the husband and the wife. Merely because the lawyers for the parties submit that it is not possible to have a reconciliation the duty of making every endeavour for bringing about a reconciliation cannot be said to have fulfilled. It thus appears, that even When the parties, Counsel state that reconciliation was not possible it is the duty of the Court to direct the parties to appear in person and find out the facts and attempt reconciliation. 8. It thus appears, that even When the parties, Counsel state that reconciliation was not possible it is the duty of the Court to direct the parties to appear in person and find out the facts and attempt reconciliation. 8. In Manju Singh V/s. Ajay Bir Singh -- , it was held as follows: The intention of the Legislature is that an attempt should be made by the Court for reconciliation before proceeding with the hearing of the petition. The provision of mandatory and an effort for reconciliation is to be made by the Court right from the start of the case by directing and giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to appear in person before the Court, even the filing of the written statement by the opposite party should not be insisted and reconciliation should be attempted by the Court, If reconciliation attempt fails, written statement be filed. The Court, however, is to watch the proceedings during trial and make further attempt for reconciliation at any stage deemed appropriate the Court. But, in any case duty is cast upon the Court to try reconciliation between the parties before finally deciding the proceedings under the Act. The words "before proceeding to grant any relief mean during the course of trial, i.e. right from the date when the opposite party is served till the date of giving final decision. 9. In Sushma Kumaris case (supra), it was held that non-observance of Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act did not make order of trial Court without jurisdiction. The contention of Kalyan Roy was that the decree impugned in this appeal is void has no force. 10. In Madburi Verma V/s. Vijay Kumar Verma 1992 East Cr. C 425 (Pat) the learned Single Judge of this Court held that non-compliance of Sec. 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act may be a serious lacuna but it cannot be a ground to render the decree invalid. It was further held that the failure of the Court below in reconciliation the matrimonial tie between the parties does not render ex pane decree invalid. 11. In this case, the husband was playing hide and seek with the Court. He did not appear after receiving the summons. He appeared after the case was fixed for ex parte hearing and filed an application for recalling of order of ex parte hearing but he did not press the application. 11. In this case, the husband was playing hide and seek with the Court. He did not appear after receiving the summons. He appeared after the case was fixed for ex parte hearing and filed an application for recalling of order of ex parte hearing but he did not press the application. He sent one application for adjournment by post. He never appeared before the Court. The Court, therefore, proceeded ex pane hearing. Ultimately, an ex parte decree was passed. 12. The background of these facts cannot be argued that it was possible for the Family Court to try for reconciliation when the husband never appeared in the Court. 13. Sri A. Sen, learned Counsel for the respondent, has argued that it is clear from Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 9 that the Court may try for reconciliation. 14. The wife brought serious allegation against her husband and led evidence in support of her case. It was highly improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case to effect reconciliation. 15. In my view, therefore, non-compliance of Sec. 9 of the Family Court Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case does not render the order of Family Court invalid. As the application for recalling the order was not moved the Court had no option but to proceed ex parte. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 17. Deokinandan Prasad, J. I agree.