Supreme Court: In a civil appeal arising out of matrimonial disputes, a Division Bench of Rajesh Bindal and *Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., exercised its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and quashed the domestic violence proceedings initiated by the wife. The Court held that while withdrawal of consent in mutual divorce is permissible, a party cannot resile from a duly executed settlement agreement except on limited grounds such as force, fraud, undue influence, or non-fulfilment of obligations.
Emphasising that vague and unsubstantiated allegations cannot sustain criminal prosecution under the Domestic Violence Act, the Court termed the proceedings as an abuse of process of law and an afterthought to prolong litigation. Noting prolonged separation, failure of settlement despite partial compliance, and multiplicity of proceedings, the Court concluded that the matrimonial bond had irretrievably broken down and granted divorce subject to compliance with the remaining settlement terms, while directing closure of all pending and future litigations between the parties.
Also Read: Mutual Consent Divorce under Hindu Law: Cooling-Off Period and Withdrawal of Consent | SCC Blog
Background
The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married on 19 February 2000 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and two children were born out of the wedlock, a daughter and a son. Owing to temperamental differences, disputes arose between the parties, leading to their separation in 2022-2023. The appellant-husband thereafter instituted a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi. By order dated 13 July 2023, the matter was referred to mediation, culminating in a settlement agreement, whereby the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act. As per the terms of the settlement, the appellant-husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs 1,50,00,000 as full and final settlement in two instalments, along with Rs 14,00,000 towards purchase of a car and return of jewellery. The respondent-wife, in turn, agreed to execute a gift deed of Rs 2,52,38,794 in favour of the appellant-husband and facilitate transfer of certain immovable properties, shares, policies and other assets, with both parties undertaking to bring an end to all disputes and refrain from initiating further proceedings against each other.
Pursuant to the settlement, the appellant-husband withdrew the earlier divorce petition and the parties jointly filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent. The Family Court, by order dated 14 August 2024, allowed the first motion under Section 13-B(1) of the Act. In compliance with the settlement, the appellant-husband paid Rs 75,00,000 as the first instalment along with Rs 14,00,000 for the car and returned the jewellery, while the respondent-wife transferred a sum of Rs 2,52,38,794 to the appellant-husband. However, subsequently, the respondent-wife withdrew her consent for mutual divorce, prompting the appellant-husband to initiate contempt proceedings in 2025. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed a complaint under Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) pursuant to which summons were issued.
The appellant-husband then approached the High Court by filing a quashing petition and a contempt petition alleging breach of the settlement agreement. The High Court, by the impugned interim order, permitted continuation of the DV Act proceedings while directing the respondent-wife to deposit Rs 89,00,000 and retain the jewellery. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court along with an application under Article 142 of the Constitution seeking dissolution of marriage. The Supreme Court, by order dated 6 February 2026, issued notice and stayed the DV Act proceedings pending before the Magistrate.
Analysis
The Court, upon hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, framed three issues for consideration, namely:
-
whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife under the DV Act should be quashed;
-
whether any party can back out from the settlement agreement arrived at in mediation proceedings and, if so, in what circumstances; and
-
whether this Court can exercise its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The Court noted that the parties had entered into a duly authenticated settlement agreement during mediation, pursuant to which the appellant-husband had complied with his obligations by paying the first instalment, Rs 14,00,000 for purchase of a car, and returning jewellery, while the respondent-wife had transferred Rs 2,52,38,794 to the appellant-husband. Despite such compliance and the first motion being allowed on 14 August 2024, the respondent-wife refused to sign the second motion petition and withdrew her consent.
The Court observed that though it is legally permissible for a party to withdraw consent before grant of divorce by mutual consent, once parties have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all disputes, it is not open to resile from its terms except in limited circumstances, namely, where the agreement is vitiated by force, fraud or undue influence, or on account of non-fulfilment of obligations by the opposite party. It was reiterated that deviation from a mediated settlement, duly authenticated and affirmed by the Court, strikes at the foundational basis of mediation and must be dealt with strictly, including imposition of heavy costs.
The Court found the reasons advanced by the respondent-wife for resiling to be wholly unconvincing. Her contention that the appellant-husband had promised additional jewellery worth Rs 120 crores and gold biscuits worth Rs 50 crores, which were deliberately excluded from the settlement to evade tax liabilities, was termed as egregious and reflective of disregard for the legal system.
A careful perusal of the DV Act complaint revealed that there were no specific allegations describing any act of domestic violence by the appellant-husband or his mother, and that mere reference to names without attributing active involvement cannot sustain criminal prosecution. The Court observed that trivial disagreements had been exaggerated to justify institution of proceedings under the DV Act and cautioned that emotional discord in matrimonial disputes cannot be permitted to form the basis of criminal prosecution, as the same would result in abuse of law and harassment. It was further noted that the respondent-wife had been living separately since 2022-2023 and that the DV Act proceedings were filed for the first time after nearly 23 years of marriage, and only after notice was issued in the contempt petition, indicating that the proceedings were an afterthought and premeditated to prolong litigation. Accordingly, the Court held that the continuation of the DV Act proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and were liable to be quashed.
On the issue of Article 142(1), the Court reiterated that it is empowered to pass such orders as are necessary to do complete justice, and though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the same has been recognised through judicial pronouncements as a basis for grant of divorce in appropriate cases. Relying on precedents, the Court held that such power is to be exercised where there is a complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, to be determined upon a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances. In the present case, the Court noted that the parties had been living separately since 2022-2023, both children had attained majority, the earlier contested divorce petition had been withdrawn pursuant to settlement, the first motion in mutual consent divorce had been allowed but the second motion was not filed due to withdrawal of consent by the respondent-wife, and multiple litigations had since ensued, including the DV complaint. In view of these circumstances, the Court was convinced that the matrimonial bond had completely broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation or peaceful co-existence.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court held that the present case was a fit one for exercise of powers under Article 142(1) and granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The Court directed the appellant-husband to pay the remaining amount of Rs 70,22,871 (after adjustment of Rs 4,77,129 towards the PPF account) and hand over the passbook within two weeks, failing which the divorce would not take effect. It was further directed that upon such payment, the parties shall execute all necessary relinquishment deeds within the stipulated period, failing which the Registrar would proceed to register the same in favour of the appellant-husband. The amount of Rs 89,00,000 deposited by the respondent-wife before the High Court was directed to be returned with accrued interest. All civil and criminal proceedings between the parties and their family members arising out of the matrimonial dispute were ordered to be quashed, with a complete bar on any future proceedings, and all pending applications were disposed of.
[Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587, decided on 13-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vijay Bishnoi
