Spouse Cannot Withdraw Consent For Mutual Divorce After Agreeing For It In Settlement Of Claims : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that while a spouse is legally entitled to withdraw consent for the grant of divorce on mutual agreement, such consent cannot be withdrawn when the parties had earlier agreed to dissolve their marriage in full and final settlement of all disputes.

The Court made this observation while coming down heavily on a wife for attempting to back out of a court-approved mediation settlement.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing an appeal by the husband challenging an order of the Delhi High Court, which had permitted continuation of domestic violence proceedings despite a mediation settlement that expressly barred future litigation between the parties.

The parties were married in 2000, and in 2023, the husband filed for divorce. After the Family Court referred the parties to mediation, they entered into a settlement, whereby they agreed to seek divorce on mutual consent. The husband, on his part, agreed to withdraw the first divorce petition, and to pay to the wife Rs 1.5 crores in two instalments, to pay Rs 14 lakhs to her for the purchase of a car, and to hand over certain jewellery items. The wife agreed ot execute a gift deed to transfer Rs 2.5 crore to the husband which was in their joint business account.

After that, the mutual divorce petition was filed by them jointly, and the husband paid Rs 75 lakhs to her as the first instalment, along with the paymnet of Rs 14 lakh. The wife too transferred rs 2.52 crore to the husband. However, before the second motion, the wife withdrew consent for mutual divorce. The wife also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the husband and his mother, and the Magistrate issued summons to them.

Aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to quash the DV Act proceedings, the husband approached the Supreme Court. He also filed an application invoking Article 142 seeking dissolution of the marriage.

SC criticises wife withdrawing from the settlement

The Court clarified an important distinction in matrimonial law. It acknowledged that under the statutory framework governing mutual consent divorce, either party is free to withdraw consent at any stage before the final decree is passed. However, the Court stressed that this right does not extend to disregarding obligations arising from a negotiated settlement resolving all disputes between the parties.

"Though it is well within the 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 the parties regarding the full and final settlement of their disputes, then in that case it is not open for the party to step back from the terms and conditions so arrived between them."

Reinforcing the institutional importance of mediation, the Court underscored that once a settlement is authenticated by a mediator and confirmed by the Court, it effectively replaces the original dispute and becomes the governing framework between the parties.

The Bench stated that permitting parties to casually resile from such settlements would strike at the foundational basis of the mediation process. Accordingly, it held that unjustified deviation from settlement terms should attract strict consequences, including the imposition of heavy costs, to deter misuse of the process

"It is trite law that once the parties have entered into a settlement agreement which was duly authenticated by the mediator, in case of any resilement from such terms as agreed upon in the settlement, the resiling party must be encumbered with heavy costs. Any deviation from the terms of the settlement arrived in mediation and later confirmed by the Court should be dealt with strictly as such deviation harbors an attack to the foundational basis of the entire process of mediation."

The judgment emphasised that "a settlement once entered and authenticated by a mediator subsumed the original complaint."

The Court stated that a party can resile from the settlement only if it was effected through fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, or if the other party failed to perform the obligations.

"The exception to the above rule is that a party can resile from the Settlement Agreement arrived in the mediation proceedings is, if it successfully demonstrates that the said Settlement Agreement was procured by force, fraud or undue influence. The party can also resile from the Settlement Agreement on account of non-fulfillment of any of the conditions by the opposite party as set out in the Settlement Agreement."

'Sheer audacity' : Court criticises wife's stance

The wife took a stand before the Supreme Court that apart from the recorded settlement, the husband had agreed to transfer to her ₹120 Crores worth of jewellery along with gold biscuits worth  ₹50 Crores in lieu of the stridhan. According to her, these terms were not recorded in the agreement to avoid tax liability.

She stated that she withdrew consent since the husband did not adhere to this promise.

Expressing surprise at her argument, the Court observed : "We are appalled at the sheer audacity of such a submission being advanced before a court of law and deplore the evident disregard exhibited towards the legal system."

DV Act Proceedings Were After Thought

The Court said that the Domestic Violence Act proceedings initiated by the wife were an afterthought after the husband filed a contempt petition against the wife's resilement from the settlement agreement.

“The proceedings under the DV Act appear to be premeditated, one filed in order to sustain some sort of litigation between the parties after she had resiled from the Settlement Agreement, as it was evidently for the first time in a long span of about 23 years of their sustained marriage, that such a petition alleging domestic violence has been filed by the Respondent-Wife. The proceedings initiated under the DV Act were merely an afterthought, as they were filed after notice was issued in the contempt petition filed by the Appellant-Husband.”, the Court observed.

Noting that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down, the Court dissolved the marriage invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. The DV Act case was quashed, and the husband was directed to pay the remaining amounts to the wife.

 Cause Title: DHANANJAY RATHI VERSUS RUCHIKA RATHI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv. Mr. Sehaj Kataria, Adv. Ms. Shreyangana Bag, Adv. Mr. S. S. Jauhar, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Neha Jain, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv.