evidence: The Court also perused Section 23(2) of the Act which postulates that the Court before granting any relief under the Act shall, in the first instance, where it is possible in the nature and circumstances of the case, make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties. The Court pointed that the object and purpose of these provisions is to check any party taking advantage of social and economic inequalities between both, given the fact that on many occasions a divorce may solve one problem, but create another when the woman is separated both socially and economically. In the present matter, the Court noted that the parties have been living separately for a decade and half. The Court said that the marriage does not exist any longer, and the relationship was terminated otherwise except by a formal decree of divorce. The Court said that the allegations levelled by the husband against wife were as serious as the allegations made by wife against the husband. Further, the Court said that both the parties had moved away and settled in their respective lives and hence there was no need to continue the agony of a mere status without them living together. The Court also said that the Trial Court and the High Court adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining the decree of divorce. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments and granted a decree of divorce.