Back
Jharkhand High Court Rules Signed Mediation Settlement Cannot Be Unilaterally Withdrawn After Acting On It
A Division Bench of the has delivered a significant ruling on the binding nature of settlements, holding that once parties sign an agreement and act upon its terms, neither can walk away on a mere change of mind.
In a judgment pronounced on , Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad disposed of a matrimonial appeal while affirming that a settlement reached through mediation carries the same enforceability as a court decree — a principle now statutorily backed by the .
A Marriage That Unravelled Through the Courts
The appeal arose from a divorce petition filed by Shashi Gurung against his wife, Shweta Gupta, under , seeking a decree on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The couple married on , in Jammu and had a son, born in , who currently resides with his mother.
The husband alleged that his wife insisted he become a "ghar jamai," used abusive language towards him and his parents, and threatened to implicate him in false dowry cases. He claimed she deserted him in . The wife, in turn, accused her husband of forcing her to abort their child, demanding dowry, and physically assaulting her — allegations that resulted in a criminal conviction against him in 2024.
The dismissed the husband's divorce petition on , prompting the present appeal before the High Court.
A Settlement Reached — and Then Repudiated
During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred to the 's Special Mediation Drive - Mediation 'For the Nation.' On , both parties voluntarily appeared before the mediator and consented to dissolve their marriage on mutually agreed terms.
The settlement prescribed that the husband would pay ₹35 lakh as , ₹40 lakh for the child's education and expenses, and ₹5 lakh towards the child's medical expenses, subject to verification of bills by a certified practitioner. It also recorded the parties' agreement to withdraw pending criminal proceedings, including Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2025, and provided for unfettered for the father.
On , the parties filed a before the High Court (I.A. No. 14390 of 2025), with the wife undertaking to withdraw the criminal revision by , and to seek of her husband in the criminal appeal.
The husband fulfilled his financial obligations in two instalments, transferring a total of ₹35 lakh through NEFT transactions — a fact corroborated by bank confirmations placed on record. However, before the appeal could be disposed of, the wife informed the Court she was no longer agreeable to the settlement, stating she wished to give the marriage a second chance.
The Core Legal Question
The Court framed the pivotal issue:
"whether a
, reached through
and thereafter filed as a
before the High Court, upon which the parties have acted, can be unilaterally withdrawn by one of the parties."
The husband's counsel argued that after a binding settlement — partially performed through the payment of ₹35 lakh — the wife could not retract from her undertaking to the Court. The wife's counsel countered that since no mutual divorce petition had been filed, she retained the right to walk away from the agreement.
Drawing the Line: Withdrawal Before vs. After Settlement
Rejecting the wife's position, the Bench clarified that the right to withdraw from mediation exists only during the mediation process , not after a formal settlement has been executed.
The Court placed significant reliance on
, where the
held that while a party can withdraw during proceedings,
"once the mediation concludes successfully and a formal
is signed by both parties and their counsels, the option to unilaterally walk away is extinguished."
The Bench also drew on , where the termed the conduct of a wife who accepted ₹50 lakh under a settlement and then attempted to renege as "," invoking to dissolve the marriage in terms of the settlement.
A further persuasive authority was
, where the
held that the right to withdraw consent before a final decree
"is not absolute when a comprehensive settlement has been entered into and partially acted upon,"
and quashed a subsequent domestic violence complaint while dissolving the marriage.
Applies
The High Court observed that the husband's payment of ₹35 lakh constituted of the settlement, which squarely engaged the against the wife.
"Once both sides record their terms in a settlement duly authenticated by a mediator, neither party can back out merely because of a subsequent change of mind or regret. In the present scenario, the husband's of his obligations (such as paying part of the ) strengthens the application of estoppel against the wife, making her legally unsustainable."
The Court further noted that the wife had given a
before the High Court in the
to withdraw the criminal revision and seek
— a breach of which
"may amount to a deliberate breach of an undertaking given to the court."
Key Observations
The judgment contains several pointed observations on the sanctity of mediated settlements:
"The right to withdraw from mediation exists only during the active mediation process... However, once the mediation concludes successfully and a formal is signed by both parties and their counsels, the option to unilaterally walk away is extinguished."
"A resulting from mediation is binding on the parties and enforceable in the same manner as if it were a judgment or decree passed by a court."
"A mere change of mind or dissatisfaction with the terms is not a valid ground."
The Verdict and Its Implications
The Court directed both parties to strictly comply with the terms of the mediation settlement dated , in their entirety, within six months. Thereafter, they are required to file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by before the competent Family Court, which has been directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the settlement.
The ruling sends a clear signal that — increasingly promoted as an effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism — cannot be treated as a negotiating exercise from which parties can retreat at will. By coupling the , with established precedent on estoppel and undertakings to courts, the judgment reinforces that mediated settlements, once signed and acted upon, carry real and enforceable consequences. For practitioners in family law, the decision highlights the strategic importance of ensuring a party is fully committed before signing, as the window for withdrawal closes once the pen meets the paper.
