1. Husband filed for divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2586
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad, JJ
Shashi Gurung – Appellant
Versus
Shweta Gupta – Respondent
F.A. No.23 of 2025
Important Points
A settlement agreement reached through court-annexed mediation and partially acted upon is legally binding. The doctrine of estoppel prevents a party from unilaterally withdrawing from such an agreement after accepting benefits or after the other party has fulfilled partial obligations.
Subject
Civil Law - Matrimonial Law
Act Referred
Family Courts Act: S.19(1)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: S.13(1)(i-a), S.13(1)(i-b), S.13-B
Mediation Act, 2023
Constitution of India: Art.142
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: S.13(1)(i-a), S.13(1)(i-b), S.13-B
Mediation Act, 2023
Constitution of India: Art.142
Headnote
(A) Family Courts Act - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b), 13-B - Mediation Act, 2023 - Court-annexed mediation - Enforceability of settlement agreements - A settlement agreement reached through court-annexed mediation and filed as a joint compromise petition holds significant legal sanctity. Once parties voluntarily execute a formal, signed agreement and act upon its terms, it becomes a legally binding document (Paras 39, 40). Under the Mediation Act, 2023, such agreements are enforceable in the same manner as a judgment or decree. The right to withdraw from mediation exists only during the active process; once a final agreement is signed, the option to unilaterally walk away is extinguished (Para 40).
(B) Doctrine of Estoppel - When a party has accepted benefits under or has acted upon a settlement, the doctrine of estoppel precludes them from subsequently denying or revoking the arrangement. A change of mind or dissatisfaction after partial performance by the opposing party does not constitute valid grounds for retraction (Paras 44, 46).
Facts of the case:
The appellant husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which was dismissed by the Family Court. On appeal, the High Court referred the parties to the Special Mediation Drive "For the Nation". The parties reached a settlement for mutual divorce, involving permanent alimony of Rs. 35 lakhs and funds for the child's education and medical expenses. The husband paid the first two installments totaling Rs. 35 lakhs. Subsequently, the wife attempted to retract her consent from the settlement, which the husband contested.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the husband had performed his part of the obligation by paying the alimony, while the wife failed to adhere to her undertakings in the joint compromise petition. The unilateral retraction by the wife after deriving partial benefits is legally unsustainable.
Issues: Whether a settlement agreement reached through court-annexed mediation and thereafter filed as a joint compromise petition before the High Court, upon which the parties have acted, can be unilaterally withdrawn by one of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that a signed and court-recorded mediation settlement is binding. Once a party acts upon the settlement or accepts benefits, the doctrine of estoppel operates to prevent them from resiling. Unilateral breach of such an undertaking to the court is impermissible except in highly exceptional circumstances.
Result: Appeal disposed of in terms of the settlement dated 19.08.2025.
(B) Doctrine of Estoppel - When a party has accepted benefits under or has acted upon a settlement, the doctrine of estoppel precludes them from subsequently denying or revoking the arrangement. A change of mind or dissatisfaction after partial performance by the opposing party does not constitute valid grounds for retraction (Paras 44, 46).
Facts of the case:
The appellant husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which was dismissed by the Family Court. On appeal, the High Court referred the parties to the Special Mediation Drive "For the Nation". The parties reached a settlement for mutual divorce, involving permanent alimony of Rs. 35 lakhs and funds for the child's education and medical expenses. The husband paid the first two installments totaling Rs. 35 lakhs. Subsequently, the wife attempted to retract her consent from the settlement, which the husband contested.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the husband had performed his part of the obligation by paying the alimony, while the wife failed to adhere to her undertakings in the joint compromise petition. The unilateral retraction by the wife after deriving partial benefits is legally unsustainable.
Issues: Whether a settlement agreement reached through court-annexed mediation and thereafter filed as a joint compromise petition before the High Court, upon which the parties have acted, can be unilaterally withdrawn by one of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that a signed and court-recorded mediation settlement is binding. Once a party acts upon the settlement or accepts benefits, the doctrine of estoppel operates to prevent them from resiling. Unilateral breach of such an undertaking to the court is impermissible except in highly exceptional circumstances.
Result: Appeal disposed of in terms of the settlement dated 19.08.2025.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
- divorce
- mediation
- permanent alimony
-
practice and procedure
-
mediation
- withdrawal from mediation (Para 40)
-
mediation
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Jha
For the Respondents: Navneet Sahay
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Jha
For the Respondents: Navneet Sahay
Table of Contents
2. Husband sought adherence to mediated settlement; wife sought to retract from settlement terms. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
3. Settlement reached through court-annexed mediation is binding; unilateral retraction after partial performance is impermissible. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
4. A mediated settlement agreement, acted upon, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn; estoppel applies. (Para 39 , 44 )
5. Appeal disposed of in terms of the settlement; parties directed to adhere to settlement terms within six months. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 )
6. Is a settlement agreement reached through court-annexed mediation and acted upon by one party binding on the other?
Yes. A settlement agreement reached through court-annexed mediation is binding. Once a party has accepted benefits under or has acted upon the settlement, the doctrine of estoppel precludes unilateral retraction. (Para 39 , 44 )
7. Can a party unilaterally withdraw from a mediated settlement agreement after having signed it?
No. Once mediation concludes successfully and a formal settlement agreement is signed, the option to unilaterally walk away is extinguished. A mere change of mind or regret is not a valid ground. (Para 40 , 46 )
8. What is the legal effect of a joint compromise petition filed before a High Court pursuant to a mediation settlement?
A joint compromise petition filed before a High Court records the settlement and creates an undertaking to the court. A breach of that undertaking after deriving benefits may be a deliberate breach. (Para 38 , 46 )
9. Does the Mediation Act, 2023 provide for enforceability of mediated settlement agreements?
Yes. The Mediation Act, 2023 stipulates that a settlement agreement resulting from mediation is binding on the parties and enforceable as if it were a judgment or decree. (Para 39 )
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Suit No.41 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the learned court while passing the impugned judgment has dismissed the suit filed for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the plaint, are required to be enumerated, as under:
3. It is the case of the plaintiff-husband (appellant herein) that the plaintiff and defendant (respondent herein) are the legally married husband and wife and their marriage was registered on 24th July, 2019 at Ranchi, Jharkhand having effect from 18.06.2011. The plaintiff and the defendant lived together at Jalandhar and cohabited together at Jalandhar and a son namely was born on 04.06.2013 who is presently residing with the defendant.
4. The plaintiff-appellant and defendant-wife known to each other since August 2007 as both were student at Ludhiana College. As per marriage certificate issued from Marriage Registrar, Ranchi, on 18.06.2011, the marriage was performed and thereafter the defendant went to her home town Dumka and the plaintiff was doing Master course in Jalandhar. The defendant met with the plaintiff between 27th August 2012 and 30th August 2012 and on 31st August 2012, she went back to her parent's house and after 3 days she again came back at Jalandhar for 1 or 2 days and again went back to her parents' house. The plaintiff always made phone calls and made several requests to the defendant to live together but she did not joined the plaintiff and on several requests of the plaintiff, the defendant lived with the plaintiff in May 2013 but the defendant always wants the plaintiff to be Gharjamai and the defendant always used abusive language for the plaintiff and his parents and even after birth of the child her behaviour remained the same towards the plaintiff.
5. It has been alleged that the defendant (respondent herein) aways threatened to the plaintiff (appellant herein) that she will engage him and his family in false dowry cases. The marriage of the plaintiff with defendant was performed in a simple manner without giving and taking dowry. In August 2013, the plaintiff got job at Jalandhar and took rented accommodation at H/No/ 8, Modern State Colony, Dakoja Jalandhar Cantt. Jalandhar and the plaintiff always tried to fulfill his duties toward the defendant but the conduct of the defendant was not cordial towards the plaintiff, she always used to cook food for the plaintiff and forced the plaintiff frequently to bring food from outside. It is also pertinent to mention here that the defendant always forced the plaintiff to leave their parents and sister and to leave the job and stay with her at her home place or other places and when the plaintiff refused to do so, then the defendant became adamant.
6. In May 2023, when the plaintiff was at his job then the defendant left the plaintiff and took the minor as well without the consent of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff came back then the landlord of the plaintiff told him that the defendant left the plaintiff and went back to her parents' house at Dumka, Jharkhand or brother's house at Kolkata. The plaintiff tried to contact the defendant and her mother and brother but the defendant did not answer the calls. The plaintiff also intimated her mother and brother and requested to talk with the defendant to come back. The plaintiff always tried to protect his matrimonial life, but all in vain. In the year 2015 the defendant made false dowry complaint before police against the plaintiff and his family members with intention to harass the plaintiff and his parents and with intention to defame the plaintiff and his family and the fals
