Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rajesh Bindal, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
Dhananjay Rathi – Appellant
Versus
Ruchika Rathi - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1924 of 2026(Arising Out of SLP (CRL) No(s). 1878 of 2026)
Decided On : 13-04-2026
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13-B – Divorce by mutual consent – Though it is well within law, for any party, to withdraw consent at any stage before grant of divorce by mutual agreement, however, in case a compromise deed or a settlement agreement has been entered in between parties regarding full and final settlement of their disputes, then in that case it is not open for party to step back from terms and conditions so arrived between them – Any deviation from terms of settlement arrived in mediation and later confirmed by Court should be dealt with strictly as such deviation harbours an attack to foundational basis of entire process of mediation – Settlement once entered and authenticated by Mediator subsumes original complaint – Exception to this rule is that a party can resile from Settlement Agreement arrived in mediation proceedings is, if it successfully demonstrates that Settlement Agreement was procured by force, fraud or undue influence – A Party can also resile from Settlement Agreement on account of non-fulfilment of any of conditions by opposite party as set out in Settlement Agreement. (Paras 29, 30 and 31)
(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13-B(1) – Constitution of India – Article 142(1) – Domestic Violence Complaint – Matrimonial disputes – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Respondent-Wife refused to honour terms of Settlement Agreement and refused to sign Second Motion Petition stating that she had withdrawn her consent from divorce – Respondent-Wife has failed to mention any event describing any sort of violence carried out either by Appellant-Husband or his mother – A criminal complaint regarding domestic violence, with mere reference to names of family members or 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 – Even after Settlement Agreement, Respondent-Wife proceeded to file a case of domestic violence against Appellant-Husband and his mother – Sacrosanct thread tying parties in this martial relationship has been snapped for long now and we perceive no possibility that they could be united (for good) in a matrimonial relationship – There has been complete and irretrievable breakdown of matrimonial relationship between parties – Present is a fit case for exercise of powers under Article 142(1) to grant divorce – Settlement amount of Rs.89,00,000/- to be returned back to Respondent-Wife along with interest. (Paras 29, 37, 38, 40, 44, 51, 52, 53 and 55)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been preferred by Appellant-Husband challenging order dated 07.01.2026 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi wherein High Court issued notice and granted an interim order directing that proceedings initiated in DV Complaint No. 3186 of 2025 under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by Respondent-Wife against Appellant-Husband and his mother (mother-in-law of Respondent-Wife) shall proceed, subject to deposit of Rs.89,00,000/- by Respondent-Wife before Registrar General of High Court.
Findings of Court:
All proceedings, civil and criminal, initiated by Appellant-Husband or Respondent-Wife, their family members, relatives, friends, in relation to or arising out of such marriage between parties, shall stand closed and quashed. In addition to this, there shall be complete bar on all future proceedings, either civil or criminal, by Appellant-Husband or Respondent-Wife, their family members, relatives, friends, on any aspect arising out of or in relation to the marriage.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed. Directions issued.
Key Points: - The DV proceedings against the Appellant-Husband were quashed and the settlement terms were upheld, with divorce granted under Article 142(1) subject to conditions. (!) (!) (!) - Whether a settlement agreement arrived via mediation can be repudiated by a party, and under what circumstances, including whether irretrievable breakdown or coercion/fraud justifies resiling. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Exercise of Article 142(1) to dissolve a marriage on irretrievable breakdown, including the factors and standards applied by the Supreme Court in such cases. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of matrimonial dispute (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contentions from appellant regarding breach of settlement (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. court's view on irretrievable breakdown of marriage (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. application of article 142 in divorce case (Para 28 , 29 , 50) |
| 5. final directions and conclusion of the case (Para 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Husband challenging the order dated 07.01.2026 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”) passed in Crl. M.C. No. 116 of 2026 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) wherein the High Court issued notice and granted an interim order directing that the proceedings initiated in DV Complaint No. 3186 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “DV Proceedings”) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the DV Act”) by the Respondent-Wife against the Appellant-Husband and his mother (motherin-law of the Respondent-Wife) shall proceed, subject to deposit of Rs.89,00,000/- by the Respondent-Wife before the Registrar General of the High Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The marriage between the Appellant-Husband and the Respondent-Wife was solemnized on 19.02.2000 in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies and from the wedlock, a daughter was born on 06.06.2003 and a son was born on 01.01.2006. Thereafter, due to temperamental differences, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties and they started living separately from the year 2022-23. Consequently, the Appellant-Husband filed Divorce Petition bearing H.M.A. No. 275/2023 under Sections 13(1)(i-a) & 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket Court House, Delhi.
4. The Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket Court House, Delhi vide order dated 13.07.2023 referred the matter to mediation. Pursuant to mediation, a settlement was entered into between the parties on 16.05.2024, settling all the disputes between them (hereinafter referred to as “Settlement Agreement”). It is not the case of either of the party that the said Settlement Agreement is not accepted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket Court House. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are summarised as follows:
4.2 The Appellant-Husband agreed to withdraw the Divorce Petition bearing H.M.A. No. 275/2023 filed under Sections 13(1)(i-a) & 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Act.
4.3 The Appellant-Husband agreed to pay and the Respondent-Wife agreed to accept Rs.1,50,00,000/- (including Rs.4,77,129/- invested in the PPF Account) towards full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of the matrimonial discord, in two installments:
4.3.1 A sum of Rs.75,00,000/- at the time of recording of statement under First Motion.
4.3.2 A sum of Rs.70,22,871/- at the time of recording of statement under Second Motion.
4.4 A Gift Deed would be executed by the Respondent-Wife for an amount of Rs.2,52,38,794/- in favour of the Appellant-husband to validate the accounts which stand reflected in the business account of Appellant-Husband on account of their relations as husband and wife.
4.5 The Appellant-Husband agreed to pay purchase of a car. Rs.14,00,000/- for
4.6 The Appellant-Husband agreed to hand over jewellery items as per APPENDIX A to P to the Respondent-Wife.
4.7 Pursuant to the grant of the First Motion, the Respondent-Wife agreed to present herself for executing Gift Deeds and such other documents required for transfer of properties, shares and policies bought in her name by the Appellant-Husband, which are as follows:
4.7.1 Project Manorath: Flat No. E-2002, Mascot GH-04B/1, Sector 16, Greater Noida.
4.7.2 Project Neo Town: Flat No. 02/1704 Patel GH-03 Te
(1) Divorce by mutual consent – Any deviation from terms of settlement arrived in mediation and later confirmed by Court should be dealt with strictly – Settlement once entered and authenticated by M....
Withdrawal of consent to mutual divorce under Section 13B(2) of the HMA does not constitute abuse of process, as mutual consent must exist at both stages of divorce proceedings.
The court can invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement agreement.
Withdrawing consent to a mutual divorce under Section 13B(2) of the HMA does not constitute an abuse of process of law, allowing criminal proceedings to continue.
The main legal principle established is the encouragement of amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes, as well as the voluntary nature of settlements and the absence of fear, force, or coercion.
The judgment emphasizes the significance of mutual consent in divorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court's authority to dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the Constit....
Divorce by mutual consent requires both parties to agree on terms, including financial settlements, and can lead to quashing of all related pending cases.
The court emphasized the power to quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes when parties reach an amicable settlement, prioritizing justice and resolution over prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
