HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.Nos.245 and 246 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Honourable Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) These two appeals arise out of the same proceedings and between the same parties, who are the husband and wife. The appellant herein is the husband, who, inter alia seeks to assail the orders of the Family Court Judge, Hyderabad, dated 13.09.2010, allowing the applications in I.A.No.300 of 2010 in O.P.No.535 of 2008 and I.A.No.301 of 2010 in O.P.No.1176 of 2008 filed by the respondent-wife to set aside the order dated 01.02.2010 dismissing O.P.No.535 of 2008 for default and to set aside the ex parte decree dated 01.02.2010 passed in O.P.No.1176 of 2008 respectively. The appellant-husband sought for dissolution of the marriage, whereas the respondent-wife sought for restitution of conjugal rights. While O.P.No.535 of 2008 filed by the appellant- husband was decreed and granted divorce, O.P.No.1176 of 2008 filed by the respondent-wife was dismissed for default. By the impugned orders, the Court below allowed the applications and restored the O.P.No.535 of 2008 and set aside the ex parte decree dated 01.02.2010 passed in O.P.No.1176 of 2010. Hence the appeals. Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant-husband, submits that having regard to the fact that the absence on behalf of the respondent-wife before the Court below has not been properly explained and in spite of repeated adjournments, the respondent-wife was not present, the Court below was justified in dismissing the applications and, therefore, the respondent-wife is not entitled for indulgence of the Court. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material available on record, the fact remains that while one O.P. was at the instance of the husband another was at the instance of the wife with regards matrimonial disputes. Having regard to the nature of proceedings and especially between husband and wife, we are of the view that suggestive approach is not necessary. Further, procedural laws are made to aid the parties but not to punish. Every endeavour should be made that the parties should compromise and especially where the matter touches on the matrimonial cause, an opportunity should be afforded to contest. In view of the same, having regard to the discretion exercised by the Court below, which only provided to contest on merits, we do not find any justification to warrant interference in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the Court below shall dispose of O.P.Nos.535 and 1176 of 2008, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without allowing any further absence or adjournments by either of the parties. B.PRAKASH RAO,J B.N.RAO NALLA,J Date:08.11.2010 usd