Court said that once a settlement agreement has been arrived at through mediation and duly authenticated, a party cannot simply back out of its terms.
It further observed that where a party resiles from a settlement agreement authenticated by a mediator, such conduct should ordinarily attract heavy costs.
The divorce settlement agreementThe appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married in 2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
In 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all disputes between them.
What did the Supreme Court say about the domestic violence complaint?
The Supreme Court has held that while a spouse is legally entitled to withdraw consent for a mutual divorce before the decree is granted, they cannot walk away from the terms of a settlement agreement entered into between the parties to resolve all their disputes.
Court said that once a settlement agreement has been arrived at through mediation and duly authenticated, a party cannot simply back out of its terms. Such a settlement can only be challenged if it was obtained through force, fraud, undue influence, or if the other side has failed to fulfil the agreed conditions.
A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi made the observations while expressing strong disapproval of a woman's attempt to withdraw from a settlement reached with her husband. Court described as "highly egregious" her claim that the husband had separately promised jewellery worth Rs 120 crore and gold biscuits worth Rs 50 crore as part of an out-of-court arrangement to evade wealth tax liabilities.
The Bench stressed that although consent for mutual divorce may be withdrawn before the grant of divorce, such withdrawal is not permissible after both parties have settled all disputes and agreed to dissolve the marriage.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, Court dissolved the marriage after finding that it had irretrievably broken down. It further observed that where a party resiles from a settlement agreement authenticated by a mediator, such conduct should ordinarily attract heavy costs.
The divorce settlement agreement
The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married in 2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. They have a daughter born in 2003 and a son born in 2006. Owing to temperamental differences, matrimonial disputes arose between them and they began living separately during 2022-23.
When the husband approached the family court seeking divorce, the matter was referred to mediation. In 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all disputes between them.
As part of the settlement, the husband paid Rs 75 lakh as the first instalment of the final settlement amount and Rs 14 lakh towards the purchase of a car. He also returned the jewellery items. The wife, in turn, transferred Rs 2.52 crore to the husband in accordance with her obligations under the agreement.
However, the wife subsequently withdrew her consent for mutual divorce and, in 2025, filed a domestic violence complaint against the husband and his mother.
When the husband sought quashing of the proceedings, the Delhi High Court issued notice and allowed the domestic violence proceedings to continue. At the same time, it directed the wife to deposit Rs 89 lakh while permitting her to retain the jewellery received under the settlement agreement.
Why did the wife withdraw her consent for divorce?
Before the Supreme Court, the wife alleged that the husband had assured her that, apart from the consideration recorded in the settlement agreement, he would give her jewellery worth Rs 120 crore and gold biscuits worth Rs 50 crore in lieu of her stridhan before signing the second motion petition.
According to her, she refused to sign the second motion petition because the husband failed to honour this promise.
She further claimed that these terms were deliberately omitted from the settlement agreement at the husband's request so as to avoid attracting the attention of the Income Tax Department and to evade wealth tax liability.
The Supreme Court rejected these submissions in strong terms.
Calling the allegations "highly egregious", the Bench observed: "We are appalled at the sheer audacity of such a submission being advanced before a court of law, and deplore the evident disregard exhibited towards the legal system".
Court also found no plausible explanation as to why the wife waited nearly eight months after the filing of the second motion petition before initiating domestic violence proceedings.
What did the Supreme Court say about the domestic violence complaint?
Court held that criminal complaints under domestic violence laws cannot be permitted to continue merely because the names of the husband or his relatives are mentioned without specific allegations showing their active involvement.
"A criminal complaint regarding domestic violence, with mere reference to the names of the family members or the husband without any specific allegation that points towards their active involvement in commission of such an act of violence, shall be nipped in the bud," the bench said.
Court further observed that parties involved in long-standing matrimonial disputes are often driven by emotions. However, emotional reactions cannot be allowed to become the basis of criminal prosecution.
"The parties to a long standing marital dispute are often fuelled by emotions, we cannot allow such emotions to take a drastic turn in as much as allowing the bursts of emotions to form the basis of criminal prosecution. Such criminal prosecution, if allowed, would lead to an abuse of law and cause harassment," the Bench added.
Finding the domestic violence proceedings to be premeditated, Court quashed them. It also dissolved the marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, holding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the case was fit for the exercise of its extraordinary powers.
Case Title: Dhananjay Rathi Vs Ruchika Rathi
Bench: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi
Date of Judgment: April 13, 2026
