JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J.: In this appeal, the appellant-husband has assailed the judgment dated 24.12.2012 passed in C.P. No.125 of 2011 by the Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam on an application filed under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent-wife. 2. The case of the husband before the Family Court was that he got married as per the Hindu Customs and rites on 17.04.2006 at Berhampur. He was a well settled software engineer and hailed from a respective family. He specifically alleged that the respondent and her parents deliberately concealed from him certain relevant and pertinent aspects concerning her health which were later on identified to be continuous and incurable. Since her childhood, wife happens to be a chronic recipient of medicines. He further alleged that the above situation aggravated in its widest ramification in psychotic deficiencies, continuous mental imbalance resulting in heretic behaviour with hysteria. It was further alleged that wife had dramatic convulsions at Berhampur, Delhi and at Chennai which have directly affected husband’s marital life and instances like breaking of Mangalasutra ‘sacred thread’ and Chudi ‘bangles’ all conveyed her to be of disturbed state of mind and desire to stay away from the husband. The husband further alleged that this was the state of affair from her childhood and he could not understand as to why she and her parents had camouflage this vital facts from him. His attempt to improve her condition through medical treatment, had all gone in vain. He further alleged that there was never an occasion when wife had lived peacefully even for a shorter period of one week without being affected by depression or neurotic tendencies. The suppression of the above condition by her parents resulted in causing abortion. He further alleged that his wife deserted him since April, 2010. Being afraid of his going mad, in the event he resides with such a person, he filed the above C.P. No.125 of 2011 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage. 3. Being noticed in the C.P. No.125 of 2011, the respondent-wife appeared before the court below and filed counter/objection. Being afraid of his going mad, in the event he resides with such a person, he filed the above C.P. No.125 of 2011 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage. 3. Being noticed in the C.P. No.125 of 2011, the respondent-wife appeared before the court below and filed counter/objection. In the counter affidavit, while denying all the allegations made against her, while admitting the marriage, wife contended that at the time of marriage, the parents of the wife had given Rs.1,50,000/- besides, gold measuring 10 tolas, gold chain, ring and other valuable household articles and goods as dowry to meet the demand of the husband and his parents. On the allegation about her ill health and the alleged deceases, she submitted that she had never suffered any psychotic diseases as alleged. The marriage between them was an arranged marriage. The wife claimed to be a Post Graduate degree holder. She has denied the allegation that she had never lived peacefully even for a short period of one week without depression and neurotic tendencies and claimed that the husband has been trying to escape the liability for shouldering the wife and to provide her maintenance. In the counter/objection, she further contended that she was driven out from the matrimonial house by the husband at the instance of his parents. She has also alleged that she was subjected to torture physically/mentally by the parents-in-law and his family members. She further alleged that the husband was demanding Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and as the said demand could not be fulfilled, the husband along with his family members, driven out the wife from their house. All the actions of the wife to lead a conjugal life with the husband went in vain. She has also reported the matter to the Mahila Police Station, Berhampur and in spite of institution of a case under Sections 498-A/394/294/506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. registered by the police against the husband and his mother, she is still prepared to join the husband and lead a conjugal life peacefully. She has further disclosed that she has also moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the matter is pending vide C.P.No.294 of 2011. She has further disclosed that she has also moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the matter is pending vide C.P.No.294 of 2011. The wife in the counter/objection claimed that she is unable to maintain herself and is passing her days in an acute financial crisis and to meet the day-to-day expenditure, she is depended up on her parents. While claiming that the relief under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, at the instance of the husband, is a counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged against the husband, she claimed that there is no reasonable ground to invoke Section 13 of the Act. In the above premises, she claimed for rejection of the aforesaid application of the husband. 4. The Trial Court upon completion of the pleading of the respective parties framed following issues for determination of the case : “ (i) Is the proceeding maintainable as framed? (ii) Is there any cause of action to bring the same? (iii) If the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? (v) To what other relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled?” 5. In course of hearing, the husband in order to substantiate his case examined himself as P.W.1 and has produced two medical papers vide Exhibits 1 & 2 whereas the wife has examined herself as D.W.1 but did not produce any documentary evidence. The Family Court disposed of the matter by passing the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2012 basing on findings on issue Nos.3 & 4 to the extent that the appellant/husband has produced two written documents as Exhibit 1 & 2, one of which is the medical prescription of one Dr. C.S. Tripathy and the second one is a Digital EEG examination of Smrutirekha Das-respondent and had dismissed the matter observing that except oral testimony of P.W.1 and the above two documents relating to pre-marriage period, the husband has not filed any other material to establish his allegation that the respondent has been of incurably innocent mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder. C.P. No.125 of 2011 was thus dismissed for want of adequate evidence. 6. C.P. No.125 of 2011 was thus dismissed for want of adequate evidence. 6. We have heard the appellant/husband in person and the respondent/wife who is represented through her counsel. 7. During the course of hearing, the husband though assailed the impugned judgment on various counts, he ultimately confined his argument only to two points firstly the impugned judgment suffers on account of perversity being contrary to the materials available on record with the Lower Court, and secondly that the case was closed for judgment on a day when neither of the parties appeared before the Court and the judgment was pronounced without giving adequate opportunity to the husband and his application for restoration has also been rejected mechanically. During hearing, the husband also took us to number of documents he has filed in the Family Court proceeding to establish his case particularly the Medical evidences. We also had the occasion of going through the Lower Court record which is available with the appeal record. On perusal of the Family Court record, it is revealed that number of documents had been produced by the husband to establish his allegations. On going through the documents we find that there are number of medical prescriptions issued by various hospitals stretching even beyond the State, which are all issued much after the marriage. 8. We would like to give here reference of some medical documents from the Lower Court Record from the Lower Court record to which our attention has been invited by the husband himself which run as follows :- 1. Appearing at Pages-61 and 62:- There is a medical prescription issued by “Mantrana Mental Health Centre, Gurgaon” as against Mrs. Smruti Rekha Dash @ Mohapatra. The said prescription clearly establishes that the wife had several medical check-ups and advices stretching to 05.01.08, 04.02.08, 18.02.08, 01.03.08, 07.03.08, respectively and the last observation in the said medical certificate appears to be dated 24.03.08; 2. Another medical certificate appearing at Page-63, which is issued by the “Mantrana Mental Health Centre, Gurgaon” in favour of Mrs. Smruti Rekha Dash @ Mohapatra, the said medical certificate contains some observations concerning the wife dated 24.03.08; and 3. There is another medical certificate issued by the “Mantrana Mental Health Centre, Gurgaon” as against Mrs. Another medical certificate appearing at Page-63, which is issued by the “Mantrana Mental Health Centre, Gurgaon” in favour of Mrs. Smruti Rekha Dash @ Mohapatra, the said medical certificate contains some observations concerning the wife dated 24.03.08; and 3. There is another medical certificate issued by the “Mantrana Mental Health Centre, Gurgaon” as against Mrs. Smruti Rekha Dash @ Mohapatra, the said medical certificate contains some observations relating to the wife dated 10.04.08, 02.05.08, 26.05.08, 02.08.08 and 18.09.08, respectively as available vide Page-64 and 65. 4. Similarly at Pages-66 and 67, there appears another medical certificate issued by very same “Mantrana Mentral Health Centre, Gurgaon” in favour of wife, which disclosed that she had undertaken some check-ups and received some advices from the particular Mental Health Centre on 03.11.08, 10.12.08, 02.02.09, 18.03.09 and 21.04.09, respectively. It is apt to mention here that these medical certificates are all issued by “Mantrana Mental Health Centre”, Gurgaon. 9. The above documents make it clear that the wife was taking consultations and health check-ups in a Mental Health Centre between the period January, 2008 till April, 2009. On perusal of above documents, we find that the marriage was solemnized on 17.04.2006, and hence several medical documents stretched beyond the date of marriage, i.e., 17.04.2006. We make it clear that to our query to the counsel appearing for the wife, he had absolutely no disagreement with the above position in the case, except saying that the respondent being the wife is at suffering end and the case should be disposed of at the earliest. 10. This being a proceeding under the Family Courts Act, 1984, according to the provisions contained under Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings other than the proceedings under Chapter-IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), before a Family Court and for the purposes of proceedings, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have all the powers of such court. There is restriction under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act prohibiting the parties to suit or proceeding before the Family Court from engaging a legal practitioner. There is restriction under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act prohibiting the parties to suit or proceeding before the Family Court from engaging a legal practitioner. True, parties have no right to be represented by a legal practitioner but, at the same time, the Family Court is given an authority that if it considers it necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek assistance of legal expert as Amicus Curiae. 11. In view of narrations made hereinabove, it appears that the lower court judgment is based on two medical certificates relied on by the husband marked as exhibits. The husband though has filed number of documents yet he was unable to bring all those documents to light, which seems to be for lack of legal advice to the husband. The husband is ignorant to bring on record all documents and further since the documents available on record were giving a picture otherwise, the Family Court instead of proceeding with the matter and depending only on two documents vide Exts.1 and 2 relied upon by the husband and giving a finding against the husband simply based on those two documents, in view of availability of further documents, ought to have pressed the provision under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 into service and thereby should have appointed an Amicus Curiae for assisting the court at least in the greater interest of justice. 12. Besides above, perusal of order-sheet, also clearly demonstrates that the case was posted to 1.12.2012 on which date, the parties were absent and, therefore, the case was postponed to 14.12.2012. Again the order-sheet dated 14.12.2012 disclosed that on that date also, the parties were absent. Surprisingly the order-sheet dated 14.12.2012 further disclose that the matter was fully heard from the side of both the parties and the matter was put up to 24.12.2012 for judgment. On 24.12.2012 the judgment was pronounced. Recording in the first part of the order dated 14.12.2012, goes contrary to the recordings made in the subsequent part of the order. 13. Surprisingly the order-sheet dated 14.12.2012 further disclose that the matter was fully heard from the side of both the parties and the matter was put up to 24.12.2012 for judgment. On 24.12.2012 the judgment was pronounced. Recording in the first part of the order dated 14.12.2012, goes contrary to the recordings made in the subsequent part of the order. 13. Under the above circumstances, we find that not only there is absolutely no consideration of the documents brought on record by the husband, but there is also no following of the requirements of law as provided in sections 10 and 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and instead, the Family Court has adopted a casual approach in only picking up two documents came through the evidence. In our considered view, the Family Court has thus arrived at a finding which is not only perverse but also contra statutory requirements and also in absence of opportunity of hearing to the parties. Since the matter has not been given a conscious consideration, we feel it proper to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2012 passed in C.P. No. 125 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Berhampur, District-Ganjam and remand the matter back to the very same court for fresh hearing and decision in the matter giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. Since the matter is of the year 2011, we direct the trial court to conclude the proceeding at the earliest. Since the matter has been decided on contest between the parties, we direct the parties to appear in the court below with the certified copy of this order, who shall upon receipt of the copy proceed with the matter and decide the same afresh in the light of observations made herein above. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It is left open to the trial court to take decision in accordance with law. The MATA proceeding thus succeeds to the extent indicated herein above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. I agree.