[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajni vs Mahesh Singh on 19 December, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 First Appeal No.746/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
FIRST APPEAL No. 746 of 2025
SMT. RAJNI
Versus
MAHESH SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Suraj Kumar Rajoriya Advocates for the
appellant/wife.
Shri Awadhesh Pratap Singh Sisodiya - Advocate for respondent/husband.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 19th day of December 2025)
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
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 filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the
Act of 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage and decree of divorce. On the
other hand, respondent moved an application under Section 9 of the Act of
1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. Said application under Section 9 of the
Act of 1955 was dismissed on the ground of settlement reached between the
parties and obviously appellant/wife lived with the respondent for some days
in hope of reunion, however, failed.
9. Appellant categorically not pressed the application for compromise
before the trial Court and considering said contention of not pressing the
application, trial Court rejected the application for compromise. In effect,
matter was required to be adjudicated on the basis of rival submissions,
evidence led and arguments advanced. Instead of doing this, trial Court
persuaded by record about disposal of earlier application under Section 9 of
the Act of 1955 preferred at the instance of respondent/husband and
subsequent prejudice likely to be caused to the respondent and got rejected the
application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 because of settlement.
However, said notion appears to be misplaced because once the application
for compromise in the case of proceeding under Section 13 of the Act of 1955
was rejected on 07.10.2024 and proceeding was revived, then it ought to go
to logical end.
10. Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order dt.05.04.2025 and
caused illegality. Appellant wants to pursue the case. She must get an
opportunity to pursue her case in accordance with law.
11. Resultantly, impugned order dt.05.04.2025 is set aside. Appeal stands
allowed and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court from the stage
where it was left before passing the impugned order. Parties are directed to
appear before the trial Court on 20.01.2026 to take guidance for further course
of action. Trial shall be proceeded as per law. However, parties shall be at
liberty to move appropriate application for compromise if they desire to do so.
Appeal stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
