B.K. PATEL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-9-2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 200/2001 directing dissolution of marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1.

2. Appellant-wife and respondent No.1 husband are Hindus. Marriage between them was solemnized on 23-6-1997 according to Hindu rites and customs. They were blessed with a daughter on 23-12-1998. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. both of whom belong to Orissa were members of Indian Air Force. Civil Proceeding No. 200/2001 was instituted for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act by the respondent No. 1. against the appellant and respondent No.2. It. is also not disputed that on the basis of allegations made by respondent No. 1 a proceeding of Board of Officers, Court of Inquiry of the Indian Air Force was conducted against respondent No.2.

3. In his application before the Family Court respondent No. 1 averred that appellant came from a rich family and her behaviour towards her husband and his relations was not good. However, he tolerated her conduct with the hope that she would amend herself in course of time Subsequently, respondent No. 1 could learn that appellant had no liking towards defence personnel for which she refused to cohabitate at times. After birth of their daughter, respondent No. 1 took his family to his place of posting at Secunderabad. While residing there, they came in contact with respondent No.2 and his wife in the month of February, 1999. Their relationship became intimate and respondent No.2 started visiting their house frequently even in absence of the respondent No.1. At the behest of respondent No.2 respondent No. 1 occupied a house adjacent to his house during the month of June, 2000. All in a sudden on 24-9-2000 respondent No.2s wife reported to the respondent No.1 in presence of the appellant that she was an eye-witness to the illicit relationship between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 on 23-9-2000 and that such relationship created disturbance in her relationship with the respondent No.2. It was further pleaded that on being asked by respondent No.1 both appellant as well as respondent No. 2 confessed of having regular voluntary sexual intercourse with each other since one year. Both of them also elaborated regarding their relation ship before Respondent No. 1s father and father in law on 28-9-2000 over phone. On 16-12-2000 the conduct of the respondent No. 2 was brought to the notice of the Air Officer Commanding, Secunderabad for initiation of disciplinary proceeding and for the purpose a Court of Enquiry was held. In course of enquiry appellant admitted that she used to have voluntary sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2.

4. In her written statement appellant denied the allegations made against her by the respondent No. 1 and made counter allegations against him. It was asserted by her that though cash of Rs. 60,000/-, refrigerator, Godrej Almirah gold ornaments etc. were given in dowry at the time of her marriage, respondent No. 1 and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry as well as customary gifts. It was asserted by her that she stayed in Secunderabad with respondent No. 1 from September, 1997 to February, 1998; from July, 1998 to March, 1999; from August, 1999 to April, 2000; from July, 2000 to October, 2000 and from December, 2000 to March, 2001 and that their daughter was born at Secunderabad. She categorically denied the allegations of her misconduct towards respondent No.1 and his family members and of adultery with respondent No. 2. She dented to have made any confession and asserted that respondent No.2 was living a happy conjugal fife. She also denied to have admitted in course of any official enquiry to have sexual intercourse with respondent No. 2. She alleged that respondent No. 1 not only was demanding more dowry but also used to assault her and that his family members supported him. They expressed discontentment against the appellant for giving birth to a daughter instead of a son. It was further alleged by the appellant that respondent No. 1 used to drink and assault her ruthlessly. On many occasions, respondent No. 1 disclosed before her that he wanted to marry another girl and that his marriage with the appellant was solemnized against his will. Even after his marriage respondent No. 1 continued to maintain his relationship with said girl and wanted to marry her. In order to fulfil his evil intention respondent No. 1 coerced the appellant to give in writing that she was living in adultery. On being subjected to physical assault and mental cruelty, appellant made oral and written admissions against her will. It was further alleged that on 15-3-2001 respondent No. 1 left the appellant and her daughter at Chandikhol Chhak in a helpless condition and told that she should take poison so that he could marry for the second time. The appellant had aversion towards smell of alcohol for which she tried to persuade respondent No. 1 many a times to give up habit of drinking. However, respondent No. 1 used to force the appellant to take liquor before cohabitation.

5. Respondent No. 2 also filed written statement denying allegations of adultery with the appellant. He admitted that there was friendship between him and respondent No.1, but denied to have visited his house in his absence. It was averred that during the later part of 2000 there was some dispute between him and respondent No. 1 due to monetary transaction which culminated in initiation of disciplinary proceeding against respondent No. 2 on the basis of false allegations made by the respondent No. 1.

6. It appears that respondent No. 2 did not participate in the hearing and was set ex parte by order dated 7-1-2005. In order to substantiate his assertions respondent No. 1 examined himself as P. W. 2 and: his father as P. W. 1 apart from relying upon Ext. 1, statement in writing by appellant. Appellant examined herself as O. P. W. No. 2, her father as O. P. W. 1 and her mother as O. P. W. 3, Two letters marked Exts. A and B were also admitted into evidence on her behalf. In course of hearing, on being called for, xerox copy of the proceeding of Court of Enquiry against respondent No. 2 containing appellants admission of adultery bearing her signature marked "X" was received from the Air Force Station, Hakimpet, Secunderabad. Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack placing reliance on evidence of respondent No. 1 and appellants admission in Ext. 1 as well as before the Court of Enquiry, stated to have been corroborated by the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant also, passed the impugned judgment.

7. The impugned judgment was assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant firstly on the basis of his contention that respondent No. 2 was not made a party to the hearing in the divorce proceeding. It was submitted that though respondent No. 2 appeared and filed written statement at the initial stage, the proceeding had been dismissed for default subsequently. After restoration of the proceeding no step was taken to secure participation of respondent No. 2. Relying upon decisions in Shishupal v. Manak Chand AIR 1992 Rajasthan 57; Long Life Carpet Industries, Gaharpur and others v. Smt. Kesar Jahan, AIR 1988 Allahabad 55; D. Thomas v. Tara, AIR 1978 Madras 415; Lal Changmungu v. Lilanpari, 1988 (1) DMC 433 (438) (FB) : (AIR 1988 Gau 53), and Jaban Prasad Shaw and others v. Jharana Ghose, 2005 AIHC 1466 : (AIR 2005 NOC 303 (Cal)), it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decree of divorce passed in the absence of adulterer is unsustainable. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court committed illegality in placing reliance on copies of the records of the proceeding in Court of Enquiry to conclude that the appellant had made admission of sexual relationship with respondent No.2. It was further contended that assuming for the sake of argument that materials on record indicate that appellant committed adultery with respondent No. 2, evidence on record also well establishes that respondent No.1 had condoned the appellants conduct subsequently for which learned trial Court ought to have held that the proceeding is not maintainable in view of provision under Section 23(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon decisions in Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 [LQ/SC/1975/129] and Smt. Minakshi Dhar v. Biresh Ranjan Dhar, AIR 1987 Gauhati 90. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that the learned trial Court has assigned cogent reasons to reject all the contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal upon reference to evidence on record and relevant legal provisions,

8. We have perused the Lower Court Record carefully upon reference to rival contentions.

9. The contention relating to non-joinder of respondent No.2 deserves mention to be rejected only. Respondent No.2 not only entered appearance in response to summon but also filed written statement. The proceeding appeals to have been dismissed for default on 10-10-2002. It was evident from order dated 19-7-2003 passed in the restoration proceeding Bearing Misc. Case No. 19 of 2003 that there was personal service of notice in restoration proceeding on respondent No. 2. While restoring the proceeding by order dated 23-7-2003 respondent No. 1 was directed to take step for appearance of respondents. However, respondent No. 2 did not choose to participate in the hearing. By order dated 7-1-2005 respondent No.2 was, therefore, set ex parte as he did not take any step. In such circumstances, there is no substance in the contention that in the divorce proceeding the alleged adulterer was ,not made a party Respondent No. 2 having been set ex parte in presence of respondent No.1, the principles indicated in the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no scope to contend that respondent No.2 was precluded from participating in the proceeding which culminated in the decree of divorce against the appellant.

10. One of the objectives in enacting Family Courts Act, 1984 was stated to be to simplify the rules of evidence and procedure so as to enable a Family Court to deal effectively with a dispute. As has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). Thus, consideration of evidence by a Family Court is not restricted by the rules of relevancy or admissibility provided under the Indian Evidence Act. In the present case, finding of adultery on the part of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court is substantially based on evidence of respondent No.1 relating to admission made by the appellant in course of the proceeding against respondent No.2 in the Court of Enquiry and in her statement Ext. 1. Appellant did not deny the factum of such admissions but took the plea to have been coerced into making such admissions. Evidence of respondent No. 1 is corroborated by contents of documents in the record of the proceeding received from the Air Force Station, Secunderabad and contents of Ext. 1. Learned trial Court also has taken note of contemporaneous conduct of appellants father O. P. W. 1 during the relevant period. Appellant appears to have categorically admitted regarding her relationship with respondent No.2 in course of the proceeding before the Court of Enquiry. She never raised complaint before the authorities conducting the Court of Enquiry of having been coerced to make such admissions Rather, in categorical terms she made admissions regarding adultery. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned trial Court that the appellant herself admitted of adultery with respondent No.2

11. In the present case appellant altogether denied allegation of adultery in her written statement. She did not advance the plea of condonation as a defence to such allegation. Nonetheless, learned trial Court considered the contention relating to condonation and rejected the same upon reference to evidence on record in accordance with law laid down in Dr. N. G. Dastane. v, Mrs. S. Dastane (supra) to the effect that even though condonation is not pleaded as defence by the respondent it is Courts duty, in view of the provisions under Section 23(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to find whether the misconduct alleged to be the basis for seeking decree of divorce was condoned by the appellant. The contention relating to condonation raised on behalf of the appellant is based on respondent No. 1s admission in course of cross-examination to the effect that he had given chance to the appellant to rectify her conduct till the end of Court of Enquiry and thereafter till filing of the case and that he was kind enough to respondent No. 1 even after the incident till filing of the present proceeding. It was also pointed out that evidence on record reveals that the appellant along with her brother stayed in respondent No. 1s quarters from the month of December, 2000 to 13/14 of March, 2001. However, as has been held in Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane(supra) condonation means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence and the restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offences was committed. To constitute condonation there must be, therefore, two things: forgiveness and restoration. Reinstatement of the offending spouse is a prime requirement of the doctrine and mere forgiyeness of the matrimonial offence is not sufficient to conclude condonation. Condonation implies a complete reconciliation in the sense of reinstating the offender to conjugal cohabitation. In the present case, there is no material on record to indicate resumption of conjugal life between the appellant and respondent No.1. Rather, their relationship is found to have remained bitter and strained. Respondent No. 1 pursued the proceeding against respondent No. 2 in the Court of Enquiry and filed proceeding for divorce. Therefore, we find no material basis to sustain the defence of condonation.

12. Thus, we find no merit in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is confirmed. Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.