JUDGMENT : MAULIK J. SHELAT, J. 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the original respondent happens to be wife of original petitioner challenging judgment and decree dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Family Court, Kutchh in Family Suit No. 111 of 2016. The parties will be referred as per their original position. 2. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent-husband. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. Short facts of the matter appears to be as under: 3.1 The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 9.12.2000 and they were blessed with a son namely Shivam. As per the case of husband, the wife left the matrimonial home and refused to come back without any reasonable cause. The husband had file a suit being Family Suit No. 111 of 2016 under section 9 of the Act containing inter-alia that without any just cause wife has left her matrimonial house one year prior to filing of Family Suit. 3.2 It appears from the impugned judgment that the wife has contested a suit by filing her objections at Exhibit 11 denying all the allegations made in the suit. 3.3 After framing the issues at Exhibit 12 and after considering the evidence on record, the Family Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.05.2018 allowed the suit and thereby directed wife to come back at her matrimonial home and fulfill her obligations with the husband. 3.4 Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, wife has approached this Court by way of filing present appeal. 4. Submission of appellant 4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant-wife would submit that impugned judgment is passed without assigning any reasons more so without appreciating the evidence led by the parties. According to learned advocate for the petitioner without any specific ground, suit filed by the husband was allowed by the Family Court. 4.2 Learned advocate for the appellant would lastly submit that the impugned judgment is non-speaking one and would request this Court to quash and set aside the same and matter may be remanded back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication. 5. 4.2 Learned advocate for the appellant would lastly submit that the impugned judgment is non-speaking one and would request this Court to quash and set aside the same and matter may be remanded back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication. 5. Submission of respondent 5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent-husband would submit that there is no infirmity in the judgment by the Family Court and there is no error committed so alleged by the other side in the judgment. He would try to justify the impugned judgment to the extent that when husband is ready to accept wife to fulfill her matrimonial obligations with the husband and to join him at her matrimonial home, which she left without any reason then these Court may not interfere with this order. However, he would fairly accept that no specific reasons are assigned by Family Court, while allowing the application. 5.2 Lastly, he would submit that if this Court is of the opinion that impugned judgment is non-speaking order and no appreciation of evidence having been discussed by the Family Court, then in that case, if this Court would remand the matter back to the Family Court, then suitable direction may be issued to decide the Family Suit within some stipulated time as same was filed in the year 2016. No other and further submissions are made by the respective ld. Advocates. 6. Points for consideration 6.1 Whether Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is non-speaking order and if so, then whether is it sustainable in law? 7. Appreciation of Submission - Finding 7.1 At the outset, it would require to be observed that impugned judgment which completed in 8 pages wherein up to Page-7, the Family Court has recorded facts and issue involved in the suit, but we are unable to find out reasons which are impressed upon by the Family Court, while allowing application of husband. We would like to reproduce Para-8 of the impugned judgment which is so called reasoning, on the basis of which application of husband was allowed. Para 8 reads as under: “8. After looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the evidences on record and cross-examination dated 29.11.2017, this Court has not found any cogent evidence on the record. Further, in light of the pleadings as well as oral evidence of both the parties the issue no. Para 8 reads as under: “8. After looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the evidences on record and cross-examination dated 29.11.2017, this Court has not found any cogent evidence on the record. Further, in light of the pleadings as well as oral evidence of both the parties the issue no. 1, 2 & 3 are answered in affirmative negative, and negative respectively and for the interest of justice for Issue No. 3 the Court pass following order.” 7.2 After going through the impugned judgment and above quoted para, this Court is of the opinion that there is no appreciation of evidence nor any discussion of evidence by the Family Court while deciding the suit filed by the husband under section 9 of the Act. 7.3 According to this Court, the Family Court has in slipshod manner has passed very cryptic order without assigning any specific reason, which is not expected from the Family Court while deciding such application. The Family Court was required to decide issues which were germane in an application under the Hindu Marriage Act keeping in mind the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. To remind the Family Court the provision of Section 9 of the Act, it is required to reproduce herein-below: “9. Restitution of conjugal rights: *** *** *** When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. Explanation - Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.” 7.4 If the Family Court could have noticed the provision of law while deciding the dispute between the parties then it was required to have subjective satisfaction of the Court while allowing an application under Section 9 of the Act to form an opinion that without any reasonable excuse opponent, in the present case-wife, has withdrawn from Society of plaintiff-husband. We are unable to see that such basic requirement of law noticed by the Family Court while adjudicating such an application. 7.5 We are at pain and constrained to observe that Family Court is passing cryptic order or orders, which are passed contrary to the basic object and reasons of Family Court Act and ethos of family dispute, for which it is established. 7.6 At this stage, we remind ourselves that passing any order that too by judicial person without assigning reasons are antithesis to justice delivery system. It is apposite to refer and reply upon decision of the Honourable Apex Court of India in a case of UPSRTC vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, 2009 (12) SCC 609 , observed as under: “[8] Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court s judgment not sustainable. [9] Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148 observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, 1974 LCR 120 it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx” it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [10] This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases for the past two decades emphasised the necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record reasons in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice-delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any license to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by the well-known saying: “varying according to the Chancellor s foot.” Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so when such orders are amenable to challenge further before higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be a proper and judicial manner of disposing of ju- diciously the claim before the courts. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind.” [Emphasis supplied] 7.7 It is by now well settled that reasons are heart of any judicial order through which court would convey its decision to the party. Every court supposed to bear in mind that justice should not only be done but seems to be done. The litigant must know why for what reasons, he/she win or lose the case. Every court supposed to bear in mind that justice should not only be done but seems to be done. The litigant must know why for what reasons, he/she win or lose the case. Such indispensable right of litigant at least can not be taken away by first court of trial by not assigning any reasons. Thus, We would like to observe that Trial court/Family Court must assign reasons how so may be brief while answering issues to follow rule of procedure whereby to observe principles of natural justice. 7.8 The upshot of the above discussion would lead to only one conclusion that impugned judgment and decree is passed without assigning any reasons, there is total non application of mind on the part of Family Court and without noticing requirement of law section 9 of the Act under which the application was filed, decided it. 8. Conclusion 8.1 In view of the above facts and circumstances and reasons stated herein above, impugned judgment and decree requires to be quashed and set aside. Thereby judgment and decree dated 30.05.2018 passed in Family Suit No. 111 of 2016 by the Family Court Bhuj-Kachchh is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court and the same is restored back on its original file of the Family Court to decide it afresh without being influenced by the impugned order and the present order, on its own merits, after giving opportunity to both sides and keeping in mind the requirement of Section 9 of the Act. It is made clear that we have not gone into merit of the matter. 8.2 Both the parties shall co-operate with the proceedings before the Family Court and shall remain present before the Family Court on 23.12.2024 to avoid any issuance of fresh notice to them. It is requested to Family Court, Bhuj-Kutch to decide and adjudicate the Suit preferably within 6 months from date of receipt of writ of this order in accordance with law. 8.3 The Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. In view of disposal of main appeal, Civil Application does not survive and disposed of accordingly.