Case at a Glance
A couple married since 2000 settled all their disputes in court-referred mediation and agreed to a mutual consent divorce. After the first motion was allowed and most obligations were performed, the wife withdrew her consent and filed a domestic violence complaint. The Supreme Court held that consent can be withdrawn before a decree, but a party cannot resile from a full and final settlement except on limited grounds such as force, fraud or undue influence. It quashed the DV case and dissolved the marriage under Article 142, on conditions.
Background
The parties married on 19 February 2000 and have two children, both now adults. They separated in 2022–23, and the husband filed a fault-based divorce petition alleging cruelty and adultery. On 13 July 2023 the Family Court referred them to mediation. A settlement agreement followed on 16 May 2024. It provided for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B, a total payment of ₹1.5 crore in two parts, return of jewellery, transfers of property, policies and shares, and an undertaking not to file further cases. The husband withdrew his fault-based petition, and the first motion was allowed on 14 August 2024.
Before the second motion, the wife withdrew her consent. She claimed the husband had orally promised jewellery worth ₹120 crore and gold worth ₹50 crore, left out of the written agreement on tax advice. On 16 October 2025 she filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act against the husband and his mother. On 7 January 2026 the Delhi High Court let the DV case proceed and directed her to keep ₹89 lakh in a fixed deposit. On 6 February 2026 the Supreme Court stayed the DV proceedings.
The Question Before the Court
Can a spouse resile from a court-referred mediated settlement for mutual consent divorce after partly performing it, and should the marriage be dissolved under Article 142?
Withdrawal of Consent Is a Right, Not an Escape From a Settlement
The Court accepted that a party may withdraw consent at any stage before a mutual consent divorce is granted. It distinguished Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar and Smruti Pahariya v. Sanjay Pahariya. Relying on Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, it held that a full and final settlement confirmed in court proceedings stands on a different footing. A party may step back from it only if it was procured by force, fraud or undue influence, or if the other side failed to meet its conditions. The wife proved none of these. The Court found the tax explanation for leaving out the jewellery "egregious", and noted the eight-month delay before she raised the claim.
On the DV complaint, the Court found no specific allegations of violence. It noted the complaint was filed only after the husband's contempt notice, and held that continuing it would be an abuse of process. It then considered Article 142, applying Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and later decisions. The factors included the long separation, the adult children, the failed settlement and the parties' conduct. It concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
What the Court Held
- A spouse cannot resile from a full and final mediated settlement except on limited grounds such as force, fraud or undue influence, or the other side's non-performance.
- The DV proceedings were quashed and the High Court's order of 7 January 2026 was set aside.
- The marriage was dissolved under Article 142, conditional on the husband paying the remaining settlement amount and handing over the PPF passbook within two weeks.
- All civil and criminal proceedings arising from the marriage were closed, the ₹89 lakh was to be returned to the wife with interest, and fresh proceedings were barred.
Why It Matters
- It protects the integrity of court-referred mediation in matrimonial cases.
- It sets limits on using withdrawal of consent to reopen a settlement that has already been acted on.
- It shows the Court will quash proceedings filed after a settlement without specific allegations.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- Put every term you rely on into the written settlement. Oral promises outside it are unlikely to be enforced.
- Do not accept benefits under a settlement unless you intend to honour it.
For counsel
- Draft settlements with a performance table and dates, so compliance can be shown.
- If a client wishes to resile, identify concrete evidence of force, fraud, undue influence or non-performance.
Key Takeaways
- Withdrawing consent under Section 13B is permitted, but it is not a licence to undo a full and final settlement.
- The exceptions are force, fraud, undue influence and non-fulfilment of conditions.
- The DV complaint was quashed as an abuse of process.
- The divorce was made conditional on the husband completing his payment.
FAQs
Can I still withdraw consent before the second motion?
Yes, the law allows withdrawal before the decree. But if you have signed a full and final settlement and acted on it, you need valid grounds to back out of it.
What happens if the husband does not pay?
The judgment makes the divorce conditional. If he does not pay the remaining amount and hand over the PPF passbook within two weeks, the divorce does not take effect.
Were future cases barred?
Yes. All proceedings arising from the marriage were closed, with a bar on new ones.
Conclusion
The Court balanced a spouse's statutory right to withdraw consent against the sanctity of a mediated settlement. Finding the withdrawal unsupported and the marriage irretrievably broken, it enforced the settlement's terms through Article 142 and ended all litigation.
Practical takeaway: treat a mediated matrimonial settlement as binding, and make sure every promise you rely on is written into it.