CR No.5579 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5579 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.12.2010 **** Monisha Goyal . . . . Petitioner VS. Atul Goyal . . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. GC Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the respondent ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner-wife is aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby her application (Annexure P2) for initiating re-conciliation proceedings has been declined after observing that such an effort has to be made only after filing of the written statement. (2). The respondent-husband, who has filed the divorce petition, is also present in Court. (3). He appears to be totally obstinate and not open to any reasonable suggestion and is not at all willing to settle the matrimonial dispute, least to say, in the interest of the minor child born out of their wedlock. In this CR No.5579 of 2010.doc - 2 – situation, the conciliation proceedings, at this stage, would obviously be an exercise in futility. (4). The revision petition is thus disposed of, however, it would be open for learned trial Court to keep in view the conduct of the husband while deciding the case on merits. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 21.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE