ARUN KUMAR MITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 22nd August, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District judge 2nd Court at Nadia on Mat. Suit No. 250 of 1999. The plaintiff/husband filed the suit praying for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner alleged that he was married with the respondent on 13. 03. 1989 and after marriage the respondent lived together with the petitioner as husband-wife till 08. 09. 1991. A daughter named Shelly was born out of the said wedlock on 03. 11. 1990. After several months dispute started and on 08. 09. 1991 the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home. The wife left the house voluntarily and did not return. She filed maintenance case under section 125 Cr. PC. She also filed criminal complaint under section 498a of IPC and ultimately the said case being G. D. 521/92 under section 498a was heard and disposed of and all the accused persons were acquitted. The petitioner, however, have been paying maintenance in terms of the order passed under section 125 Cr. PC. The learned Trial Judge granted decree of divorce on 22nd August, 2003. The suit was allowed on contest. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the husband has preferred this appeal basically on the ground that the learned Trial Judge misread the evidence and misconstrued the ratio of the judgement reported in 1993 Vol. (1) CHN, 213 and AIR 1985 Delhi 221. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel submitted mainly on two points - one is cruelty has not been proved and desertion has also not been proved and the reconciliation attempt, which is a must was not done in this case. The learned counsel argued that had there been any attempt to reconcile, the matter could have been reconciled but the learned Trial Judge fixed different dates for conciliation but did not make any attempt for conciliation. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel drew attention of this Court on the ordersheets in Order No. 3 dated 18. 12. 1999. There is order "fixing 4. 4. 2000 for reconciliation". Then again on 04. 04. 2000 the order is "fixing 10. 7. 2000 for reconciliation and hearing. " Then again on 10. 07. 2000 the order is "adjourned for reconciliation". On 18. 09. 12. 1999. There is order "fixing 4. 4. 2000 for reconciliation". Then again on 04. 04. 2000 the order is "fixing 10. 7. 2000 for reconciliation and hearing. " Then again on 10. 07. 2000 the order is "adjourned for reconciliation". On 18. 09. 2000 the order is "for reconciliation and hearing. " the learned Counsel submitted that several dates were fixed but actually the reconciliation attempt did not take place. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel also drew attention of this Court to the examination-in-chief of P. W1. Shibani Dutta/wife done through affidavit. In the said affidavit in paragraph 15 Shibani Dutta has said "i do not want divorce. I want to stay with my husband alongwith my daughter. " This paragraph has been verified as true to the best of knowledge. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel then relied on the evidence of Shibani Dutta in cross-examination where she said "i cannot say whether it is not possible for my husband to live with me but I am willing to live with him. " ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel then relied on Order 32a Rules 1 and 3 and submitted that Order 32a Rule 3 provides that it is the duty of Court to make efforts for settlement. The learned Counsel also relied on section 23 sub-section (2) of Hindu Marriage Act and submitted that here also it has been provided that reconciliation attempt must be made before proceedings to grant any relief under this Act. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel then attacked the impugned judgement on the score that cruelty has not been proved on the contrary the husband tried to take advantage of his own wrong. The learned Counsel referred to the deposition of the husband Bimal Dutta where he has said "i have got an illicit relation with Sadhana Das" and "husband of Sadhana Das committed suicide due to my mixing with Sadhana Das. " The learned Counsel submitted that this is the mental torture committed by the husband on the wife/appellant but the learned Trial Judge allowed the husband/respondent to take advantage of his own wrong. The learned Counsel relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2004 (3) CHN 516 , Kakali Das vs. Asish Kr. " The learned Counsel submitted that this is the mental torture committed by the husband on the wife/appellant but the learned Trial Judge allowed the husband/respondent to take advantage of his own wrong. The learned Counsel relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2004 (3) CHN 516 , Kakali Das vs. Asish Kr. Das, where their Lordships observed that "before an allegation of cruelty could be deemed as legal cruelty it must first be proved by the husband as factually false". Their Lordships also observed "baseless allegations of cruelty by one spouse against the other - gravest character of mental cruelty. " ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel then relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1994 SC 710 , V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat. In this judgement the Hon'ble apex Court has clarified as to what is mental cruelty. Their Lordships in this decision in paragraph 17 observed in the manner as follows: "mental cruelty in section 13 (l) (ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. This situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made. " ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel also on another decision of this Court reported in 2005 Vol. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made. " ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel also on another decision of this Court reported in 2005 Vol. (3) CHN 274, Anjali Ghosh vs. Subodh Kumar Ghosh. In this judgement the learned Single Judge observed that one cannot take advantage of his own wrong. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel concludingly submitted that cruelty, voluntary desertion could not be proved and attempt for reconciliation was also not done and in that view of the matter the judgement impugned and the decree should be set aside. ( 12 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the party and considered the averments. Before dealing with the allegations and counter-allegations let us quote section 23 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and then Order 32a and Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. "23 (2 ). Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the Court, in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties. ORDER XXXIIA l. Application of the Order.- (1) The provisions of this order shall apply to suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family. (2 ). ORDER XXXIIA l. Application of the Order.- (1) The provisions of this order shall apply to suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family. (2 ). In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-rule (1), the provisions of this order shall apply to the following suits or proceedings concerning the family, namely - (a) a suit or proceeding for matrimonial relief, including a suit or proceeding for declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of any minor or other member of the family, under a disability; (d) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (e) a suit or proceeding as to the validity or effect of an adoption; (f) a suit or proceeding, instituted by a member of the family, relating to wills, intestacy and succession; (g) a suit or proceeding relating to any other matter concerning the family in respect of which the parties are subject to their personal law. (3) So much of this order as relates to a matter provided for by a special law in respect of any suit or proceeding shall not apply to that suit or proceeding. 3. Duty of Court to make efforts for settlement.- (1) In every suit or proceeding to which this Order applies, an endeavour shall be made by the Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit. (2) If, in any such suit or proceeding, at any stage it appears to the Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Court may adjourn the proceeding for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement. (3) The power conferred by sub-rule (2) shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other power of the Court to adjourn the proceedings. (3) The power conferred by sub-rule (2) shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other power of the Court to adjourn the proceedings. " ( 13 ) FROM the above statutory provisions it clearly appear that reconciliation prior to passing any order is a must but it appears from order-sheets that date for reconciliation was fixed but no attempt for reconciliation was made. That apart it also appears from the evidence that the husband's action amounted to cruelty and it was shifted to the wife but the learned trial Judge wrongly appreciated the evidence and granted a decree for divorce. ( 14 ) IN our opinion, such a decree could not have been granted by the learned Trial Judge. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgement and decree impugned and sent the matter back to the learned Trial Judge for making attempt first for reconciliation and then to decide the matter afresh on the existing evidence or if the learned Judge so feels he may take further evidence and the trial should be completed within six months. ( 15 ) WITH the above observations this appeal is disposed of. ( 16 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of. .