The Delhi High Court has held that a spouse's decision to withdraw consent for divorce by mutual consent, even after entering into a mediated settlement agreement, cannot by itself constitute wilful disobedience warranting contempt proceedings.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that contempt proceedings cannot be used to compel a party to proceed with a mutual consent divorce when the law itself recognises the right of either spouse to withdraw consent before the divorce decree is passed.

“Merely because the Respondent (wife) has had second thoughts and is no longer inclined to seek divorce by mutual consent, her conduct cannot be held to constitute wilful and deliberate disobedience warranting initiation of contempt proceedings,” the Court observed.

The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by a husband alleging wilful disobedience of a mediated settlement agreement dated October 17, 2025, under which the parties had agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

As per the settlement, the husband had agreed to pay the wife Rs 3.6 lakh in two equal instalments of Rs 1.8 lakh each. The first instalment was payable at the time of recording statements in the First Motion proceedings, while the second was to be paid during the Second Motion proceedings.

The parties had also endorsed the settlement in their statements before the Family Court on October 28, 2025, following which the husband withdrew his divorce petition.

However, the husband alleged that despite preparing and sharing the draft First Motion petition along with affidavits, the wife refused to sign the documents despite repeated requests.

He further claimed that he had arranged Rs 1.8 lakh towards the first instalment by availing a loan and had also obtained a demand draft, which was subsequently renewed. He alleged that the wife's conduct had caused him financial prejudice.

Appearing before the Court, the wife's counsel submitted that although she had entered into the mediated settlement, she was no longer inclined to seek dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and had consequently refused to sign the joint divorce petition.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash wherein it was held that mutual consent must continue until the divorce decree is passed. Either party is entitled to withdraw consent before the decree, and in the absence of subsisting mutual consent, a divorce decree under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be granted.

The Court also relied on Division Bench judgment in Chhavi Agarwal v. Anurag Goel, which held that refusal to proceed with the Second Motion, by itself, would not constitute wilful disobedience attracting contempt proceedings.

Applying the said principles, the Court held that the wife could not be compelled to give her consent for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

It further observed that merely because the settlement was arrived at before the Mediation Centre and subsequently placed before the Family Court would not, by itself, establish wilful disobedience under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

It also took note of the fact that the wife had not received any amount under the settlement, as the first instalment was payable only at the stage of recording statements in the First Motion proceedings, which never took place.

“Though the Petitioner withdrew his Divorce Petition in terms of the settlement, this circumstance, by itself, would not be sufficient to hold the Respondent guilty of wilful disobedience of an Order or Undertaking given to the Court,” the Court said.

Clarifying that the husband would remain at liberty to pursue other remedies available in law for enforcement of the settlement or his legal rights, Justice Krishna dismissed the contempt plea.