A divorce proceeding cannot be closed on the grounds of a failed compromise if the application for settlement has been rejected and the proceeding revived; the case must proceed to a logical conclusion based on evidence.

J U D G M E N T

Per : Justice Anand Pathak

1. The present First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act of 1984') and Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act of 1955') is preferred by the appellant/wife being aggrieved by the order dt.05.04.2025 passed by the Third District Judge, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.), whereby the case/proceeding preferred by the appellant/wife got closed.

2. Precisely stated, facts of the case are that the appellant entered into wedlock with respondent on 24.11.2012 at Tahsil Ambah, District Morena by Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, appellant was Govt. Teacher but thereafter respondent and his family members pressurized her to leave the job. This caused domestic dispute between the couple and ultimately on 27.08.2020, respondent removed the appellant from domestic household and she left the matrimonial home.

3. On 14.12.2020 appellant filed an application under Section 13 (1) (i) (ia) & (ib) of the Act of 1955 for dissolution of marriage. During pendency of case, on mediation/counselling by the court below, appellant agreed to stay with the respondent for two months to explore the possibility of reunion, therefore, she moved an application for settlement under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC, however, she was subjected to physical abuse and cruelty at matrimonial home. Therefore, she filed a complaint at Police Station MIG, Indore (M.P.) on 02.11.2024. After coming back to her parental home (parents' house) she moved an application on 20.11.2024 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and sought amendment in the pleadings. She also expressed her intention to not press the application for compromise, meaning thereby she declined to enter into settlement. However, trial Court passed the impugned order dt.05.04.2025. Same is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that initially she filed an application for settlement/compromise on 24.08.2024 on counselling extended by the trial Court and tried to explore the possibility of reunion. However, things did not work out, therefore, on 07.10.2024, counsel for the appellant not pressed the said compromise application. Trial Court allowed the said prayer and compromise application stood rejected. However, vide impugned order dt.05.04.2025 on flimsy ground, trial Court closed the proceeding.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 was preferred by the respondent during the period when compromise talks were going on and compromise application was preferred in the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 also. Aforesaid application was dismissed because of compromise reached between the parties. However, on this pretext, application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 preferred by the appellant also got dismissed, whereas in the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, appellant specifically denied the compromise because of conduct of respondent.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order. As submitted, both the parties settled their matters mutually, therefore, now said application preferred by the appellant can not be moved.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

8. In the case in hand, it appears that both the parties have filed applications. One application is