Case at a Glance
A husband and wife married in 2000 settled all their disputes through court-annexed mediation in May 2024 and filed for divorce by mutual consent. After the First Motion was allowed, the wife withdrew consent, and later filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Supreme Court held that while consent to a mutual divorce can be withdrawn before the decree, a party cannot back out of a mediated settlement accepted by the court except for limited reasons such as fraud, coercion or non-compliance by the other side. It quashed the DV proceedings as an abuse of process and dissolved the marriage under Article 142(1), subject to the husband paying the balance amount.
The parties married on 19 February 2000 and have two children, both now adults. They had been living separately since around 2022–23. The husband filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and adultery in 2023. The Family Court referred the parties to mediation on 13 July 2023, and on 16 May 2024 they signed a settlement under which the husband agreed, among other things, to pay ₹1.5 crore in two instalments, transfer specified properties and policies, and hand over jewellery, while the parties agreed not to litigate further.
Acting on the settlement, the husband withdrew his fault-based petition and a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed; the First Motion was allowed on 14 August 2024. The wife then refused to join the Second Motion, alleging that the husband had orally promised further jewellery and gold outside the written agreement. After the husband initiated contempt proceedings, the wife filed a DV Act complaint on 16 October 2025. The Delhi High Court, on 7 January 2026, allowed the DV proceedings to continue subject to the wife depositing ₹89 lakh. The husband appealed, and also sought dissolution of the marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a spouse resile from a settlement reached in court-annexed mediation and then launch fresh proceedings under the DV Act; and should the Supreme Court dissolve the marriage under Article 142(1) where the marriage has irretrievably broken down?
Withdrawal of Consent vs. Backing Out of a Mediated Settlement
The Court distinguished two things. Relying on Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, (1991) 02 SC CK 0021 and Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar, (2011) 04 SC CK 0048, it accepted that mutual consent must continue until the decree, so a party can withdraw consent to the divorce itself. But, following Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal, (2004) 11 SC CK 0018, Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar and Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, (2021) 10 SC CK 0039, a party who has agreed to terms in a mediated settlement recorded before the court cannot simply step away from it. In the Court’s words, “it is not open for the party to step back from the terms and conditions so arrived between them,” the exceptions being fraud, force, undue influence or non-compliance by the other party. The Court added that “the resiling party must be encumbered with heavy costs.”
Testing the wife’s explanation, the Court found it unpersuasive: she raised the alleged oral promise only after a delay of about eight months, the items did not feature in a list she herself had sent in February 2025, and the DV complaint did not set out any specific act of domestic violence. It treated the complaint as an afterthought filed after the contempt notice and observed that “such criminal prosecution, if allowed, would lead to an abuse of law and cause harassment.” Noting that irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court nonetheless invoked Article 142(1) in line with Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 05 SC CK 0001 and Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, (2024) 12 SC CK 0059, citing the long separation, years of litigation and the fact that the children are grown up.
What the Court Actually Held
- A party may withdraw consent to a mutual-consent divorce before the decree, but cannot back out of a court-accepted mediated settlement except on grounds such as fraud, coercion, undue influence or non-compliance by the other side.
- The DV Act complaint was an afterthought and an abuse of process; the proceedings were quashed and the Delhi High Court’s order of 7 January 2026 was set aside.
- The marriage was dissolved under Article 142(1), but the divorce takes effect only if the husband pays the balance amount (₹70,22,871, less the PPF amount of ₹4,77,129) and hands over the PPF passbook within two weeks.
- The ₹89 lakh deposited by the wife is to be returned to her with accrued interest, relinquishment deeds are to be executed within four weeks, and all civil and criminal proceedings between the parties arising out of the marriage stand closed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It strengthens the finality of mediated settlements in matrimonial disputes, which form a large share of family court mediation.
- It warns that criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings launched after resiling from a settlement can be quashed as an abuse of process.
- It shows the Supreme Court will balance finality with fairness by making the divorce conditional on the other side completing its payment obligations.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Spouses in Matrimonial Disputes
- Read every clause of a mediation settlement carefully; once accepted by the court it is enforceable and hard to undo.
- If a promise matters to you, make sure it is written into the settlement — oral side-promises are unlikely to be believed later.
- You may still withdraw consent to divorce, but backing out of the settlement terms can invite costs and quashing of later cases.
For Counsel
- Plead specific grounds — fraud, coercion, undue influence or non-compliance — if a client seeks to resile from a mediated settlement.
- Delay and contemporaneous documents (such as messages listing claimed items) will weigh heavily in testing the bona fides of later claims.
- An Article 142(1) application can be paired with a quashing appeal to bring all litigation to a close.
Key Takeaways
- Consent to a mutual divorce can be withdrawn, but a mediated settlement is binding.
- Fraud, force, undue influence or non-compliance are the recognised exits.
- A DV complaint filed as an afterthought, without specific allegations, can be quashed.
- Irretrievable breakdown remains a ground only under Article 142, not under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a wife or husband withdraw consent after the First Motion in a mutual divorce?
Yes. The judgment accepts, relying on Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, that consent must subsist until the decree. But that does not allow a party to escape the settlement terms agreed in mediation without a recognised ground.
When can a party back out of a mediated settlement?
According to the Court, where the settlement was obtained by fraud, force or undue influence, or where the other party has not complied with it. Otherwise the party resiling may be burdened with heavy costs.
Did the Supreme Court grant divorce even though the wife opposed it?
Yes, under Article 142(1) on the basis that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, but conditional on the husband paying the balance amount within two weeks.
Conclusion
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, (2026) 04 SC CK 0481 draws a clear line between withdrawing consent to divorce and walking away from a mediated settlement. By quashing the later DV case and dissolving the marriage on conditions, the Court has signalled that settlements reached in court-annexed mediation are meant to end litigation, not start a new round of it.
Practical takeaway: Put every promise into the written settlement; once the court accepts it, resiling without proof of fraud, coercion or non-compliance is likely to fail and may attract costs.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com