JUDGMENT S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the order refusing the application of the husband for dissolution of the marriage under Hindu Marriage Act. There is no dispute that on 11.3.1986 both parties were married. It is the case of husband, that from 24.3.1986 there was dispute between husband and wife on account of going back to her parents' house as she did not like to continue her stay with her husband that on 6.6.1986 the wife sprayed Kerosene on her own clothes and with a lighted match stick in her hand, threatened that she would burn herself. She was rescued by outsiders. Four days after, she wanted to go to her parents' house, petitioner refused to allow her to go her parents' house. On account of it, she threatened that if she would not be allowed to go to parents' house, she would commit suicide and abused the petitioner. Lastly on 30.6.1987 she left her matrimonial house. The petitioner is an emplyee in the State Bank of India Branch at Puranpur, District Pilibhit on the post of the Clerk-cum-Cashier. The respondent also went to the office of the petitioner at Puranpur and met the Branch Manager on 21.11.1986. The petitioner being disturbed mentally on account of the same filed an application on 21.5.1987 on the ground that respondent has cruelly treated him and accordingly there should be dissolution of marriage. Wife contested the application and stated that on account of conduct of the husband she had left the matrimonial house.
2. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the husband and defendant-wife examined herself. Considering the aforesaid material, the Trial Court having disbelieved the witnesses of the husband on account of being interested and having dismissed the application for dissolution of marriage, this appeal has been filed.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, an application for litigation expenses has been filed on 20.7.1991. It is brought to our notice that the parties are at daggers drawn and litigation for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending in this Court as well as the application for prosecution of the husband for bigamy is also pending in Division Bench of this Court. Some amounts have been directed to be paid by this Court towards maintenance of his wife by the husband.
4. It appears that both husband and wife are very young and the Court should normally make an endeavour for conciliation so that husband and wife can live together forgetting past differences. This is provided for under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act. It is bounden duty of the Family Courts for making an attempt for conciliation before proceeding with trial of the case. We do not find that Family Courts has complied with this statutory direction.
5. This Court have taken steps for conciliation in appeal but such conciliation proceeding in this Court would not be convenient to the parties. In such circumstances, propriety demands that conciliation should be made by the Family Courts.
6. Coming to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, we are inclined to hold that the consolidated sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses in this appeal would be appropriate. As regards the matrimonial alimony, we satisfy that amount of Rs. 750/- per month would be the just for maintenance of wife as the appellant is an employee of State Bank of India. Wife shall be entitled to get the maintenance from the date of the application for the same in this Court. By the order of this Court, the appellant has paid some amount as maintenance as directed in the writ application arising out of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She is not entitled to both the payments. Accordingly, amount already paid as per the direction of the Court in the writ application shall be adjusted and the balance shall be paid. This order is executable in case no payment is made by husband voluntarily.
7. Since, we are directing that conciliation proceeding shall be taken up by the Family Courts, we set aside the impugned order and direct both the parties to appear before Family Courts on 21.11.1994 on which date, Family Courts being satisfied that the entire amount of arrear balance has been deposited or paid, shall proceed with the conciliation. Wife is at liberty to move application before the Family Courts for her journey expenses and maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage act during the pendency of case in the Family Courts.
8. Although learned Counsel for the respondent makes statement before us that the wife is willing to join the company of her husband, learned Counsel for the appellant is not able to make such statement without the instruction of the appellant. If such statement is made by wife in the Family Courts, the same shall be considered on its own merits. Public Policy is for early disposal of matrimonial proceeding. Accordingly we direct that the proceedings shall be finalised by 31.3.1995. In case the Family Courts is not able to decide the litigation as directed by this Court reason, therefore, shall be intimated to this Court. In case conciliation before the Family Court fails, both parties shall be given opportunity to adduce further evidence. Evidence on the record is utilised.
9. In result, appeal is allowed as indicated. There shall be no order as to costs.