ORDER 1. The record shows that none had appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service on the last date of hearing i.e. July 31, 2008. 2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent today also. The case has been called twice since morning. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner for final disposal. 3. Wife is the petitioner before this Court who has felt aggrieved against an order dated January 8, 2008 passed by the trial Judge, whereby an application filed by her under Order 9, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside an ex parte order dated November 3.2007 passed by the trial Court has been rejected and the wife has not been permitted to cross examine the witnesses of the husband. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case. 5. It is apparent from the impugned order that the trial Court has treated the dispute between the parties as an ordinary civil dispute and as such adjudicated the application filed by the petitioner-wife as having been filed by an ordinary defendant who is an adversary to the plaintiff. 6. The trial Court has completely ignored the fact that the dispute between the parties was a matrimonial dispute and while adjudicating the said dispute, a humanitarian approach had to be adopted. The aforesaid position of law stands well settled by various judgments of the apex Court. In the case of Balwinder Kaur v. Hardeep Singh [( 1997) 11 SCC 701], it was observed by the apex Court as follows: "9. A petition for divorce is not like any other commercial suit. A divorce not only affects the parties, their children, if any, and their families but the society also feels its reverberations. Stress should always be on preserving the institution of marriage. That is the requirement of law. One may refer to the objects and reasons which· led to setting up of Family Courts under the Family Courts Act, 1984. For the purpose of settlement of family dispute emphasis is 'laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results' and eliminating adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence. That is the requirement of law. One may refer to the objects and reasons which· led to setting up of Family Courts under the Family Courts Act, 1984. For the purpose of settlement of family dispute emphasis is 'laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results' and eliminating adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence. These further note: 'The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) had also stressed that in dealing with disputes concerning the family the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 to provide for a special procedure to be adopted in suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family. However, not much use has been made by the Courts in adopting this conciliatory procedure and the Courts continue to deal with family disputes in the same manner as other civil matters and the same adversary approach prevails." 7. It was further observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that the rules of procedure are meant to sub serve the cause of justice and not to frustrate it. The Supreme Court further observed as follows: " 15. Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates the Court before granting decree for divorce, whether defended or not to satisfy itself (1) if the grounds for claiming relief exist and the petitioner is not taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief and (2) the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty. A duty is also cast can on 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 a reconciliation between the parties. Under sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act, the Court can even refer the matter to any person named by the parties for the purpose of reconciliation and to adjourn the matter for that purpose. These objectives and principles govern all Courts trying matrimonial matters." 8. Under sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act, the Court can even refer the matter to any person named by the parties for the purpose of reconciliation and to adjourn the matter for that purpose. These objectives and principles govern all Courts trying matrimonial matters." 8. It is thus apparent that the entire approach adopted by the trial Court in dealing with the application filed by the petitioner-wife was on a misconception of the controversy between the parties and it had not been kept in view that the suit did not involve a commercial transaction but was a matrimonial dispute. 9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order dated January 8, 2008 passed by the trial Court is set aside with a result that the application filed by the wife under Order 9, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code is also allowed and consequently, the order dated November 3,2007 for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against the wife is also set aside. The petitioner-wife shall now be permitted to participate in the proceedings, as per law and cross-examine the husband and his witnesses.