JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. Th. Mahira, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.2.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Thoubal in Original Mat. (Dec.)Suit No.6/2014/2/2015 by which the learned Judge, Family Court, Thoubal passed a decree declaring that the petitioner, the respondent herein, is the legally married wife of late Ningthoujam Gopal Singh of Heirok Part-III, who was serving as a Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Horticulture & Soil Conservation Department, Government of Manipur. 3. Several grounds have been raised assailing the said judgment and order, amongst others, that the petitioner (respondent herein) had failed to prove the alleged divorce between the appellant herein and the said late Gopal Singh. 4. The petitioner(respondent herein) had filed the said declaratory claiming that she was married to said late Gopal Singh about 32 years ago by way of Keina Katpa ceremony (a traditional way of marriage) at the house of N. Gopal Singh before Bhraman Sobha and the sagei people as the petitioner belongs to Maring community. Since then, the petitioner and said Gopal Singh had been living as husband and wife and out of the said wedlock, one son, namely N. Binoy Singh, now aged about 30 years and two daughters, N. Mandakini Devi and N. Kombirei Devi, aged about 26 and 18 years respectively were born. According to the petitioner, the said Gopal Singh died on 6.6.2012. The petitioner states that about 42 years ago, the said Gopal Singh had married one woman, namely, Jati Devi, (the appellant herein), out of which wedlock, one son namely, N. Brojen Singh, who is now about 40 years, was born. When the said N. Brojen Singh had attained the age of one year, Jati Devi (the appellant herein) got divorced from the said Gopal Singh and only after her divorce from the said Gopal Singh, she got remarried to a person namely, Abujam Ibomcha Singh s/o late A. Nimai Singh of Heirok Part-III, Kabo Leikai and after the second marriage of Jati Devi to A. Ibomcha Singh, N. Brojen Singh, her son had been living with his father, N. Gopal Singh. It is also stated that after the divorce of the Jati Devi (appellant herein ), Gopal Singh got married to the petitioner, the respondent herein and since then, they had been living as husband and wife. It is also stated that the said N. Gopal Singh was working as a Grade-IV in the Directorate of Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur and he died on 6.6.2012 while in service. It is claimed that the said Gopal Singh entered the name of the petitioner as his nominee in the service book. Thus, at the time of death of the said Gopal Singh, he left behind the petitioner (respondent herein), N. Brojen Singh, N. Binoy Singh, N. Mandakini Devi and Kombirei Devi as his legal heirs. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of the Gopal Singh, the petitioner approached the authorities for grant of terminal beneifts including the pensionary benefits when the petitioner came to know that the present appellant had also filed an application for grant of terminal benefits claiming to be the wife of the said late Gopal Singh . In view of the aforesaid conflicting claims, the petitioner filed the aforesaid declaratory suit before the Court of Judge, Family Court, Thoubal. The appellant who is also impleaded as respondent No.1 in the said declaratory suit filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the said suit. The case was proceeded ex-parte against the appellant as the appellant did not adduce any evidence. The learned Judge, Family Court, Thoubal framed the following issues, viz, “(i) whether the petitioner was legally married to late Gopal Singh or not, and (ii) whether late Gopal Singh had divorced the respondent or not and if so, after the divorce, whether the respondent was married to Abujam Ibomcha Singh s/o late A. Nimai Singh of Heirok Part-III, Kabo Leikai or not” as mentioned in para No.10 of the impugned judgment. The petitioner (respondent herein) produced three witnesses and exhibited as many as 8 documents. The learned Judge, Family Court, Thoubal held that the petitioner had successfully established and proved her case by oral and documentary evidence as observed in para No.14 of the impugned judgment and accordingly decreed the said suit in favour of the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein). 4. The petitioner (respondent herein) produced three witnesses and exhibited as many as 8 documents. The learned Judge, Family Court, Thoubal held that the petitioner had successfully established and proved her case by oral and documentary evidence as observed in para No.14 of the impugned judgment and accordingly decreed the said suit in favour of the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein). 4. As mentioned above, this judgment and decree had been assailed on various grounds including that the petitioner had failed to prove the divorce between the appellant and the respondent therein and the said late N. Gopal Singh. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. “Judgment” has been defined u/s 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. A “decree” has been defined u/s 2(2) of the CPC to mean a formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit which may be either preliminary or final. Therefore by a “judgment” the rights of the parties are conclusively determined. Though it has not been provided under CPC as to what the judgment should contain, Section 4(2) of the Court of Small Causes provides that the judgment of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. These are the fundamental ingredients which would constitute a “judgment”. 7. In Tribhovandas vs. C.R. Contractor’s Company; AIR 1943 Bombay 416, the Bombay High Court observed as follows: “….. the points for determination and the decisions thereon should be so worded as the convey some indication that the Judge has applied his mind to every question of law and fact arising in the case and come to a definite conclusion on each of them …. Even in small cause suits complicated questions of law and fact are likely to arise and a mere monosyllabic answer to such a question would not be enough to enable the revising Court to surmise the reasons behind the answer. In such a case, a brief discussion of the question would be not only appropriate, but necessary. Even in small cause suits complicated questions of law and fact are likely to arise and a mere monosyllabic answer to such a question would not be enough to enable the revising Court to surmise the reasons behind the answer. In such a case, a brief discussion of the question would be not only appropriate, but necessary. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down, on a reasonable interpretation of Order XX, Rule 4(1), read with section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, it may be stated that in a small cause suit, on a question of fact, the Judge need not give more than a clear statement of the points which he has to decide and his decisions thereon, and if he thinks them to be sufficiently intelligible, he is not bound to give his reasons for those decisions. But on a question of law, if a bare finding is not likely to indicate the reasoning by which it is arrived at, the Judge, in order to enable the High Court to see if his decision is according to law, is bound ….. to set out so much of his reason as will make clear the road by which he reached his conclusion.” It is an of-quoted legal maxim that reason of the law is the soul of the law. Therefore, every finding arrived at by the Court on the issues framed by it supported by reasons is sine qua non for a valid judgment. 8. In Jagannath vs. Ram; L.R. 16 I.A. 39, the Judicial Committee observed as follows: “….. it is the duty of the Courts below to pronounce their opinion on all the important points in an appealable case, and that a failure to do so not infrequently necessitates a remand with the consequence of heavy additional costs. The observance of this Rule is of special importance where the decision of other points depends upon the sifting of a mass of oral evidence, or upon the proper significance of the language employed in a vernacular document.” Thus, every finding of the Court must be supported by reasons, which must be cogent, clear and succinct. In a judicial proceeding, such reasons must reflect the proper application of mind by the Court on the facts and evidence before the Court. In a judicial proceeding, such reasons must reflect the proper application of mind by the Court on the facts and evidence before the Court. The finding arrived at by the Court obviously must be based on relevant and admissible evidence in law for which the Court has to examine the evidences on the points in issue. In other words, there must be critical analysis and appraisal of the evidence adduce and mere reference or mentioning of the evidence is not enough. The Court has to make a proper analysis and carefully appraise the evidence. 9. Keeping the aforesaid fundamental principles in mind, we may examine the present impugned judgment. Paragraph Nos. 1 to 7 of the judgment consists of the facts involved in the said suit and in paragraph No.8, the learned Judge, Family Court, Thoubal has mentioned the documents relied on by the petitioner. Paragraph No.9 of the judgment refers to the fact of respondent therein filing a written statement and proceeding ex-parte against her. Para No.10 of the judgment and order contains the issues framed by the Court and para No.11 enumerates the 8(eight) documents exhibited by the petitioner and recording that the petitioner has examined three witnesses including himself. Para No.12 and 13 mention about filing of affidavits by the witnesses and examination of witnesses without discussing the evidence. Then comes para No.14, which forms the substantive part of the judgment and order which is reproduced hereinbelow: “14. The petitioner has successfully established and proved her case by oral and documentary evidence mentioned above. On perusal of the materials on record specially, the depositions of witnesses and electoral rolls, it is clear that the name of the petitioner, Radhe Devi is shown as the wife of late Gopal Singh. However, the name of respondent No.1 is not shown as wife of late Gopal Singh in any of the electoral rolls. As per deposition of witnesses, respondent No.1 remarried with Abujam Ibomcha Singh after her divorce from late N. Gopal Singh.” Para No.15 is the declaration of the decree. 10. A reading of the aforesaid para No.14 of the judgment and order would clearly indicate that it forms the core of the judgment and order without elaborate reasoning which is required in respect of the issues framed by the Court. At best, it can be said that the reasons assigned in the judgment are cryptic. 10. A reading of the aforesaid para No.14 of the judgment and order would clearly indicate that it forms the core of the judgment and order without elaborate reasoning which is required in respect of the issues framed by the Court. At best, it can be said that the reasons assigned in the judgment are cryptic. It does not indicate critical analysis and appraisal of the evidence on record. As regards the issue framed as to whether the petitioner was legally married to late Gopal Singh or not, the Court made the finding with the observation that on perusal of the materials on record specially the depositions of witnesses and electoral rolls, it is clear that the name of the petitioner is shown as the wife of late Gopal Singh. There is hardly any discussion or reference to the evidences. The Court below further observed that, however, the name of respondent No.1 is not shown as wife of late Gopal Singh in any of the electoral rolls and as per deposition of witnesses, respondent No.1 married with Abujam Ibomcha Singh after her divorce from late N. Gopal Singh. The aforesaid observations of the Court do not amount to proper finding which has to be arrived at by the Court in respect of the issues framed by the Court; viz, (i) whether the petitioner was legally married to late Gopal Singh or not and (ii) whether late Gopal Singh had divorced the respondent or not and if so, after divorce, whether the respondent was married to Abujam Ibomcha Singh. We are of the view that even if the conclusion arrived at by the learned Court below is correct, such conclusion has not been arrived at after critical analysis and appraisal of the evidence on record. We are thus not satisfied with the conclusion arrived at the learned Family Court below as the conclusion does not seem to have been arrived at after proper application of mind by proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Court below and accordingly, we remand the matter to the Court of Family Court, Thoubal, Manipur for reconsideration and decide the matter afresh by proper analysis and appraisal of the evidence on record. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Court below and accordingly, we remand the matter to the Court of Family Court, Thoubal, Manipur for reconsideration and decide the matter afresh by proper analysis and appraisal of the evidence on record. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.02.2016 passed in Original Mat(Dec.) Suit No.6/14/2/2015 is set aside and matter is remanded for fresh reconsideration as directed above.