Supreme Court of India
DHANANJAY RATHIversusRUCHIKA RATHI
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 360
- Decided
- 13 April 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- RAJESH BINDAL
Holding
The Supreme Court quashed the DV complaint, exercised its power under Article 142(1) to dissolve the marriage on the basis of an irretrievable breakdown, and ordered the parties to comply with the remaining terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Summary
The husband and wife, married in 2000, lived separately from 2022 and entered into a mediated Settlement Agreement in May 2024 that provided for a mutual‑consent divorce, payment of Rs 75 lakh, a car purchase, jewellery hand‑over and other financial transfers. The first motion for divorce was granted after the husband complied with the initial payments, but the wife later withdrew her consent before the second motion and filed a domestic‑violence complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act. The husband sought quashing of the DV complaint and, invoking Article 142(1) of the Constitution, asked the Supreme Court to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The Court held that a party may withdraw consent before a decree, but not when a full settlement has been executed, and that the DV proceedings were an abuse of process. It further found the marriage to be irretrievably broken and exercised its extraordinary powers to grant a divorce, subject to the remaining settlement terms. Consequently, the DV complaint was quashed, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to fulfill the outstanding obligations.
Issues considered
- Whether the domestic‑violence proceedings filed by the wife should be quashed.
- Whether a party may rescind a Settlement Agreement entered in mediation and, if so, under what circumstances.
- Whether the Supreme Court can, under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, decree a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the present facts, and on what terms.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 528
- Constitution of Indias. 142(1)
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13(1)(i-a), s. 13(1)(i)(ia), s. 13B(1), s. 13B(2)
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005s. 12
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife under the DV Act should be quashed; whether any party can back out from the Settlement Agreement arrived at in the mediation proceedings; and whether this Court, can exercise its powers u/Art.142(1) to the parties herein on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, upon an application filed by the appellant-husband; if yes, then on what terms and conditions. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Divorce
Subjects
Settlement AgreementDivorceIrretrievable breakdown of marriageDivorce by mutual consentDomestic violenceMatrimonial discordMediation proceedingsFirst MotionWithdrew the consent for mutual divorceQuashing of complaint
Judgment
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 175 : 2026 INSC 360
Dhananjay Rathi
v.
Ruchika Rathi
(Criminal Appeal No. 1924 of 2026)
13 April 2026
[Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the proceedings initiated by the
respondent-wife under the DV Act should be quashed; whether any
party can back out from the Settlement Agreement arrived at in the
mediation proceedings; and whether this Court, can exercise its
powers u/Art.142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce
to the parties herein on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage, upon an application filed by the appellant-husband; if
yes, then on what terms and conditions.
Headnotes†
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Divorce petition – Parties,
appellant-husband and respondent-wife entered into
settlement agreement – Petition for divorce by mutual
consent filed – First Motion of the petition allowed, in view
of the settlement arrived at, and in compliance thereof, the
appellant paid ₹ 75,00,000/- as first installment of the final
settlement amount along with ₹ 14,00,000/- for purchase
of the car and also returned the jewellery items as stated
therein to the respondent, and the respondent executed a
gift deed/forfeited her claim – However, subsequently, the
respondent withdrew the consent for the mutual divorce, and
later filed complaint u/s.12 of DV Act against the appellant
and his mother – Appellant then filed petition for quashing
of complaint – High Court directed continuance of DV
proceedings – Correctness:
Held: 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 compromise deed or settlement agreement has
* Author
176 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 – However, a party can resile from the Settlement
Agreement arrived in the mediation proceedings, if it successfully
demonstrates that the said Settlement Agreement was procured
by force, fraud or undue influence, or on account of non-fulfillment
of any of the conditions by the opposite party as set out in the
Settlement Agreement – On facts, withdrawal of consent before the
Second Motion, was merely on the ground of non-adherence to the
promise made by the appellant-husband which was not even the
part of the Settlement Agreement – Also no plausible explanation
as to why the respondent-wife waited for eight long months from
the date of the Second Motion Petition before initiating the DV
proceedings – Complaint filed by the respondent-wife under the
DV Act depicts that there are no specific allegations regarding any
sort of domestic violence that could emanate from the pleadings –
Respondent-wife failed to mention any event describing any sort
of violence carried out either by the appellant-Husband or his
mother – 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 – Thus,
the proceedings under the DV Act as initiated by the respondent
liable to be quashed, the continuance of which would be an abuse
of the process of law – It is evident from records that there has
been a complete and irretrievable breakdown of the matrimonial
relationship between the parties – In such a case, when there
is no scope of parties peacefully co-existing together, no point
in continuation of any sorts of litigation in between the parties
arising solely out of the matrimonial discord – Thus, a fit case
for exercise of powers u/Art.142(1) to grant a divorce as there
had been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage – Marriage
between the party dissolved subject to the terms specified – DV
complaint quashed and impugned order set aside. [Paras 29, 31,
37, 40, 41, 52, 53, 55]
Case Law Cited
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2023)
14 SCC 231 – followed.
Smt Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash [1991] 1 SCR 274 : (1991) 2
SCC 25; Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar [2011] 6 SCR 118 :
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 177
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
(2011) 5 SCC 234; Smruti Pahariya v. Sanjay Pahariya [2009] 8
SCR 631 : (2009) 12 SCC 338 – held inapplicable.
Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal and Others (2005) 3 SCC
299; Mohd. Shamim and Others v. Nhahid Begum and Another
(2005) 3 SCC 302; Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar [2024] 5 SCR
567 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1191; Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v.
State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 926 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1611; Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel [2021] 11 SCR 432 :
(2022) 11 SCC 705; Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda [2024] 12
SCR 1355 : (2025) 3 SCC 686; Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta,
2025 INSC 254 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 383; Vineet Taneja v.
Ritu Johari (2025) 3 SCC 732; Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar, 2026
INSC 73 : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 95 – referred to.
List of Acts
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Settlement Agreement; Divorce; Irretrievable breakdown of marriage;
Divorce by mutual consent; Domestic violence; Matrimonial discord;
Mediation proceedings; First Motion; Withdrew the consent for
mutual divorce; Quashing of complaint.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
1924 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2026 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMC No. 116 of 2026.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Prabhjit Jauhar, Sehaj Kataria, Ms. Shreyangana Bag, S. S. Jauhar.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Prashant Mendiratta, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ms. Neha
Jain, Siddharth Vasudev.
178 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 (mother-in-law of the Respondent-Wife) shall
proceed, subject to deposit of ₹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:
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 179
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
4.1 Both agreed to dissolve their marriage by a Decree of Divorce by
Mutual Consent as per Sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Act.
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 ₹1,50,00,000/- (including ₹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 ₹75,00,000/- at the time of recording of statement
under First Motion.
4.3.2 A sum of ₹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 ₹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 ₹14,00,000/- for purchase
of a car.
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 Tech
zone, Greater Noida.
4.7.3 Project Neo Town: Flat No. D2/1705 Patel GH-03 Tech
zone, Greater Noida.
4.7.4 LIC Policy No. 117410693 and Bajaj Allianz Policy No.
0506426223
180 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4.7.5 Shares held in Globe Capital, K.L. Rathi Steels and
Rathi Steels Ltd.
4.7.6 Jewellery account as maintained by the Appellant-
Husband in favor of their daughter.
4.8 Both the parties further agreed to put an end to all the disputes
between them and their family members, and additionally both
the parties also agreed to refrain from instituting any case (civil
or criminal) against each other or their family members.
5. Thereafter, on 04.07.2024, the Divorce petition bearing H.M.A. No.
235/2023 filed under Sections 13(1)(i-a) & 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Act was
withdrawn by the Appellant-Husband and furthermore, a petition for
Divorce under Section 13-B(1) of the Act was jointly filed by the
Appellant-Husband and the Respondent-Wife, which was registered
as H.M.A. No. 1185/2024, in the Court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Saket Court House, Delhi. Both the parties therein signed an
Affidavit of Undertaking dated 03.07.2024, agreeing to comply with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
6. Thereafter, the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket Court
House, Delhi, vide order dated 14.08.2024, allowed the First Motion
of the petition filed under Section 13B(1) of the Act, in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties. In compliance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Appellant-Husband paid
₹75,00,000/- as first installment of the final settlement amount along
with a sum of ₹14,00,000/- for purchase of the car. The Appellant-
Husband has also returned the Jewellery Items as described in
APPENDIX A to P to the Respondent-Wife. At the same time, the
Respondent-Wife, in compliance with her obligations under the
Settlement Agreement, transferred a sum of ₹2,52,38,794/- to the
Appellant-Husband.
7. Subsequently, the Respondent-Wife withdrew her consent for the
mutual divorce and in response, the Appellant-Husband filed a
Contempt Petition No. 07/2025 before the Principal Judge, Family
Court, South District, Saket District Court, New Delhi. Later, a
complaint bearing DV Complaint No. 3186 of 2025, was filed,
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, Delhi, by
the Respondent-Wife under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, against the
Appellant-Husband and his mother on 16.10.2025 wherein, vide order
dated 13.11.2025, summons were issued against them.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 181
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
8. Thereafter, the Appellant-Husband withdrew the Contempt Petition
No. 07/2025 filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, South
District, Saket District Court, New Delhi and proceeded to file a
Quashing Petition bearing Crl. M.C. No. 116 of 2026 before the High
Court. The Appellant-Husband also filed a Contempt Petition bearing
Contempt Case (C) No. 19 of 2026 before the High Court seeking
initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondent-Wife for
alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, which is still pending.
9. The High Court in the Quashing Petition, vide Impugned Order
passed an interim order issuing notice, and agreeing to continue
the D.V. proceedings while directing the Respondent-Wife to deposit
₹89,00,000/- and retain the jewellery received by her in terms of the
Settlement Agreement. The relevant portions from the judgment are
reproduced hereinunder:
“CRL.M.A. 392/2026 (exemption)
Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite
compliances be made within 01 week. The application
stands disposed-of.
CRL.M.C. 116/2026 & CRL.M.A. 391/2026 (stay)
By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner
seeks quashing of domestic violence complaint bearing CT
Case No.3186/2025 pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class-02/Mahila Court, South District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits, that the parties had resolved their
disputes vide a Settlement Agreement dated 16.05.2024
signed under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Saket
Courts, New Delhi, as per which the parties were to seek
divorce by mutual consent. It is submitted that under the
said settlement, the petitioner has paid to the respondent
Rs. 89 lacs and has also handed-over to her jewellery as
referred to in clause ‘B’ of the settlement.
3. Mr. Jauhar submits, that pursuant to the settlement,
parties filed the first motion seeking divorce by mutual
182 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
consent under 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955
(‘HMA’), wherein the respondent also filed an affidavit of
undertaking as required by law, agreeing to abide by the
terms of the settlement; and the first motion was passed
by the learned Family Court vide order dated 14.08.2024.
4. Mr. Jauhar submits, that one of the terms of the
settlement was that the parties will put to an end all
disputes between them and with their respective family
members; and further the respondent had also agreed
as follows:
“12. The Parties agree and acknowledge that
by signing of the present Settlement Agreement
shall put an end to all disputes between the
Parties and their family members and relatives.
The Second Party undertakes and acknowledges
that neither she nor her parents or any of her
family members, relatives, friends shall institute
any case or proceedings (civil or criminal)
in future against the First Party, his family
members, relatives and friends with respect to
the present matrimonial discord between the
Parties. Similarly, the First Party undertakes and
acknowledges that neither he nor his parents
or any of his family members, relatives, friends
shall institute any case or proceedings (civil or
criminal) in future against the Second Party,
her family members, relatives and friends with
respect to the present matrimonial discord
between the Parties.”
5. Counsel submits however, that despite the aforesaid
position, the respondent has now reneged on the terms
of settlement and has filed a complaint under section 12
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (‘DV Act’) alleging acts of domestic violence and
seeking various reliefs against the petitioner.
6. It is argued, that having signed the mediated settlement
agreement and having received benefits thereunder, the
respondent cannot now be permitted to file the complaint
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 183
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
under section 12 of the DV Act, since that would amount
to abuse of the process of law.
7. Mr. Jauhar further submits, that as part of the terms of
settlement, the petitioner has in fact withdrawn a petition
that he had filed under section 13 of the HMA vide order
dated 04.07.2024, whereby the petitioner had sought
dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the
ground of adultery; and that the petitioner is accordingly
now put to serious disadvantage.
8. Issue notice.
9. Mr. Prashant Mendiratta learned counsel appears for
the respondent on advance copy; accepts notice; and
opposes the grant of any interim relief.
10. Mr. Mendiratta submits, that in addition to the terms
contained in the settlement agreement, there were certain
other terms that were also agreed upon between the parties
by exchange of e-mails, which the petitioner is now dithering
on; and by reason of the petitioner’s conduct, the respondent
is no longer willing to abide by the mediated settlement and
will not concede to a divorce by mutual consent.
11. In support of their respective submissions, learned
counsel for the parties have cited certain judgments of
the Supreme Court as well as of Coordinate Benches of
this court.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, on a
prima-facie view of the matter, and in the interests of
justice, this court is of opinion that the following directions
are required to be passed at this stage:
12.1. The respondent shall, by way of disgorgement,
deposit the sum of Rs. 89 lacs that have admittedly
beenreceived by her from the petitioner under the
terms of Settlement Agreement dated 16.05.2024,
with the Registrar General of this court within 04
weeks from today;
12.2. The Registrar General is directed to retain the
amount so deposited in a fixed deposit account in a
184 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
nationalised bank, initially for a period of 01 year; to
be renewed for the same period from time-to-time,
without awaiting any further directions from this court
in that behalf, unless otherwise directed by the court;
12.3. Though the respondent shall continue to hold the
jewellery, which also she admits to having received
from the petitioner in terms of clause ‘B’ of the
settlement agreement, she is restrained from selling,
transferring or parting with possession of any part
of that jewellery during the pendency of the present
proceedings, without prior permission of this court;
12.4. Since this court considers it inadvisable to
restrain a party from exercising their legal rights by
prosecuting legal proceedings, subject to compliance
of the above, the respondent shall be entitled to
proceed with the complaint filed by her under section
12 of the DV Act.
13. Let reply to the petition as well as CRL.M.A. No.
391/2026 be filed within 04 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if
any, be filed within 03 weeks thereafter; with copy to the
opposing counsel.
14. Whether or not the petition filed by the petitioner under
section 13 of the HMA (which was subsequently withdrawn
by him) should be restored, will be considered subsequently.
For the record, Mr. Mendiratta submits, that they have no
objection to the petitioner reviving the said divorce case.
15. Re-notify on 05th May 2026. JANUARY 7,2026
CRL.M.C. 116/2026”
10. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant-Husband approached
this Court by filing the present SLP. In addition to this, the Appellant-
Husband also preferred an application bearing I.A. No. 35342 of 2026
in the present SLP seeking Decree of Divorce under Article 142(1)
of the Constitution of India. This Court vide order dated 06.02.2026,
issued notice and stayed the DV proceedings pending before the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, Delhi. Subsequently,
a Counter-Affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavit have been filed by the
respective parties.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 185
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. On behalf of the Appellant-Husband
11. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Husband vehemently submitted
that the Impugned Order suffers from an error of law as it failed
to appreciate that the parties have been living separately since
21.12.2022, with no intention whatsoever to resume cohabitation. It
was submitted that the Respondent-Wife indulged in an extramarital
relationship, leading to the filing of a divorce petition dated 30.01.2023
on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. The matter was thereafter
referred to mediation, culminating in a Settlement Agreement dated
16.05.2024, whereby, under Clause 11, the Respondent-Wife agreed
to accept a lump sum amount of ₹1,50,00,000/- towards full and
final settlement of all claims, along with jewellery and ₹14,00,000/-
for the purchase of a new car, as provided under Clause 7 of the
Settlement Agreement.
12. It was further submitted that Clause 12 of the Settlement Agreement
clearly stipulated that neither the Respondent-Wife nor her family
members would initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against
the husband or his family members. It has been submitted that the
Respondent-Wife admittedly received ₹75,00,000/- as first installment
of the lump sum amount, ₹4,00,000/- for the car, and her entire
jewellery at the time of the First Motion, which was duly allowed
by the Family Court, Saket. It was argued that, despite having
accepted ₹89,00,000/- and all her jewellery, the Respondent-Wife,
with malafide intentions, refused to proceed with the Second Motion
Petition and instead filed a vexatious complaint under the DV Act,
solely to extract a more financially lucrative settlement. The learned
counsel contended that such conduct amounts to a clear abuse of
the process of law and is contumacious in nature, and thus, liable
to be nipped in the bud, as held by this Court in Ruchi Agarwal v.
Amit Kumar Agarwal and others, reported as (2005) 3 SCC 299,
and Mohd. Shamim and others v. Nhahid Begum and another,
reported as (2005) 3 SCC 302.
13. The allegations made by the Respondent-Wife is that she provided
her consent to the Settlement Agreement and the consequent divorce
only on the basis of assurances given by the Appellant-Husband that
he would return her jewellery worth ₹120 crores and gold biscuits
worth ₹50 crores, were vehemently denied. Per contra, it was argued
186 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that no such agreement ever existed, nor was there any evidence
to suggest that jewellery of such value was ever given, and that
these claims were merely tactics to extort additional money from the
Appellant-Husband. It was further contended that the Respondent-
Wife listed all her items to be returned by the Appellant-Husband,
which were not specified under the Settlement Agreement, by way
of WhatsApp messages dated 17.02.2025, wherein there is not even
a whisper of the jewellery worth ₹120 crores and the gold biscuits
worth ₹50 crores.
14. The learned counsel further submitted that the marriage between
the parties has irretrievably broken down, with both parties having
made serious allegations of cruelty, incompatibility, and irreconcilable
differences, and neither party having expressed any willingness to
resume marital obligations at any stage. Reliance was placed upon the
judgment of this Court in Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar, reported
as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1191, wherein this Court exercised powers
under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage when there existed no
scope of reconciliation between the parties and directed compliance
with the terms of a concluded settlement. It was further submitted that
the Appellant-Husband herein is ready and willing to comply with the
Settlement Agreement by paying the balance amount of ₹75,00,000/-.
15. It was argued that the High Court erred in permitting the Respondent-
Wife to continue with the DV proceedings subject to deposit of
₹89,00,000/-, instead of quashing the same in exercise of powers
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), despite the proceedings
being ex facie an abuse of process in light of the binding Settlement
Agreement as well as the Affidavit of Undertaking dated 03.07.2024.
The Appellant-Husband has also initiated contempt proceedings for
breach of the Settlement Agreement and the Undertaking. The learned
counsel finally argued that loss of finality in litigation would ensue
if parties are permitted to renege from mediated settlements. As a
result, it was prayed that this Court should exercise its extraordinary
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the
marriage and quash the DV proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
B. On behalf of the Respondent-Wife
16. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent-
Wife that the Appellant-Husband had assured the Respondent-Wife
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 187
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
that he will return the jewellery gifted to the Respondent-Wife by his
parents, relatives and family members and by her parents worth ₹120
crores at the time of signing of the Settlement Agreement and gold
biscuits worth ₹50 crores before signing of the Second Motion Petition.
However, the same was not included in the Settlement Agreement
and the Respondent-Wife was told by the Appellant-Husband that
including the same would alert the Income Tax Department and he
may have to give a wealth tax on the same. It was also made clear
that in case the Appellant-Husband fails to return the said jewellery,
the Respondent-Wife need not sign the Second Motion Petition.
Accordingly, it was contended that believing the said assurances
being made by the Appellant-Husband, the Respondent-Wife signed
the Settlement Agreement and the First Motion Petition.
17. The learned counsel further submitted that after the recording of
the statements for the First Motion, the Respondent-Wife asked the
Appellant-Husband to hand over the jewellery and the gold biscuits
as promised by him. However, the Appellant-Husband completely
refused and said that he would hand over the jewellery and gold
biscuits only after the grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent.
Therefore, the Respondent-Wife refused to sign the Second Motion
Petition and withdrew her consent to the mutual divorce because of
the conduct and ill-intention of the Appellant-Husband and reliance
was placed on the email dated 21.02.2025 sent by the counsel for the
Appellant-Husband, wherein it was expressly stated that all payments,
terms or personal items agreed upon and not specifically mentioned in
the Settlement Agreement shall be made good in toto by 02.03.2025.
18. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the Respondent-
Wife, that in compliance with the direction given by the High Court
and within the stipulated time period, she has deposited the amount
of ₹89,00,000/- by way of two Demand Drafts (₹75,00,000/- and
₹14,00,000/-, respectively) before the Registrar General of the High
Court.
19. Furthermore, it is submitted that in terms of settled principles governing
divorce by mutual consent, the consent of the parties must subsist
not only at the stage of filing of the petition but also, is required to
continue to exist till the passing of the final decree. Reference in this
regard was made to the judgment of this Court in Smt Sureshta
Devi v. Om Prakash, reported as (1991) 2 SCC 25, wherein it was
held as follows:
188 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“14. Sub-section (2) requires the court to hear the parties
which means both the parties. If one of the parties at that
stage says that “I have withdrawn my consent”, or “I am
not a willing party to the divorce”, the court cannot pass
a decree of divorce by mutual consent. If the court is held
to have the power to make a decree solely based on the
initial petition, it negates the whole idea of mutuality and
consent for divorce. Mutual consent to the divorce is a sine
qua non for passing a decree for divorce under Section
13-B. Mutual consent should continue till the divorce
decree is passed. It is a positive requirement for the court
to pass a decree of divorce. “The consent must continue
to decree nisi and must be valid subsisting consent when
the case is heard”. [See (i) Halsbury’s Laws of England,
4th edn., vol. 13 para 645; (ii) Rayden on Divorce, 12th
edn., vol. 1, p. 291; and (iii) Beales v. Beales [(1972) 2
All ER 667, 674].”
20. It is also submitted that the Settlement Agreement is entirely one-
sided, whereby the Respondent-Wife alone was required to relinquish
her rights, share in properties and financial interests in favour of the
Appellant-Husband, including transfer of a sum of ₹2,52,38,794/-
by diluting and liquidating her mutual funds and shares, despite
having no independent source of income, and without receiving
any commensurate or reciprocal consideration in return and thus,
withdrawal of consent by the Respondent-Wife was a legally justified
and inevitable consequence of the conduct of the Appellant-Husband.
21. Moreover, it is submitted that the unlawful retention of the Respondent-
Wife’s stridhan, jewellery, gold biscuits, and monies, coupled with
her continued deprivation thereof, amounts to continuing economic
abuse as recognised under Section 3 of the DV Act and the cause of
action continues to subsist and the rights of the Respondent-Wife to
seek redressal under the DV Act remain unaffected by the cessation
of cohabitation or the alleged severance of matrimonial ties.
ANALYSIS
22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on
record and the issues arising for consideration before this Court are
as follows:
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 189
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
I. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Respondent-Wife
under the DV Act should be quashed?
II. Whether any party can back out from the Settlement Agreement
arrived at in the mediation proceedings? If yes, in what situation?
III. Whether this Court, in the case in hand, can exercise its powers
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to grant a decree
of divorce to the parties herein on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage, upon an application filed by the
Appellant-Husband? If yes, then on what terms and conditions?
23. In the present case, the marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 19.02.2000 and they have two issues, a daughter aged 23 years
and a son aged 20 years. On 30.01.2023, the Appellant-Husband
filed a Divorce Petition on grounds of cruelty and adultery. In the said
case, the concerned trial Court referred the parties for mediation at
the mediation centre. During mediation, both the parties agreed to
settle all their disputes and accordingly, a Settlement Agreement was
entered between the parties, wherein, subject to the compliance with
the terms thereof, the parties were to apply for divorce by mutual
consent.
24. The First Motion Petition in the petition for divorce by mutual consent
was allowed on 14.08.2024 after fulfilling the terms as per the
Settlement Agreement to that effect and the Second Motion Petition
was to be filed on or before 20.02.2025. However, the Respondent-
Wife refused to sign the Second Motion Petition within the stipulated
time period and withdrew her consent to the mutual divorce.
25. Subsequently, the Appellant-Husband filed a contempt petition being
Contempt Petition No. 7/2025, which was later withdrawn by the
Appellant-Husband to pursue his remedy before the High Court.
Soon after filing the contempt petition, the Respondent-Wife initiated
proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act and filed a case bearing
D.V. Complaint No. 3186/2025 on 16.10.2025.
26. This Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal (supra) was caught up with
a similar situation wherein the husband performed his part of the
compromise agreed for mutual consent divorce, however, the wife
partly performed her obligations and did not withdraw certain cases.
It was argued by the wife that the said compromise was obtained
by the husband and his family through threat and coercion. This
190 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Court therein held that it was difficult to accept the argument that
the compromise was signed under coercion since the wife partly
performed the obligations mentioned thereunder. The relevant portions
from the judgment are reproduced hereinunder:
“7. It is based on the said compromise the appellant
obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section 13-B
of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial compliance with
the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal
case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code but for reasons better known to her she did not
withdraw that complaint from which this appeal arises.
That apart after the order of the High Court quashing the
said complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, she
has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this background, we
will have to appreciate the merits of this appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however,
contended that though the appellant had signed the
compromise deed with the abovementioned terms in it, the
same was obtained by the respondent husband and his
family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not
receive lump sum maintenance and her stridhan properties.
We find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the
background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise
deed the respondent husband has given her a consent
divorce which she wanted, thus had performed his part
of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the
appellant partially performed her part of the obligations
by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section
125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to
the Family Court where Section 125 CrPC proceedings
were pending that the compromise deed was filed under
coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement
before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise
which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the
proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having
received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis
of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept
the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 191
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the
criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed
by the wife only to harass the respondents.
9. In view of the abovesaid subsequent events and the
conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the
process of the court if the criminal proceedings from
which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore,
we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice,
we should while dismissing this appeal also quash the
proceedings arising from criminal case Cr. No. 224 of
2003 registered in Police Station Bilaspur (District Rampur)
filed under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal
is disposed of.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
27. The case of Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1611, was also based on an
almost identical set of facts. In that case, the first motion for divorce
by mutual consent was moved by both the parties along with the
Settlement Agreement and the same was allowed by the Family
Court. Before moving the Second Motion Petition, the wife resiled
from the settlement agreement. A three-judge Bench of this Court
therein noting down that the marriage has irretrievably broken, granted
divorce and quashed all the proceedings between the parties arising
out of the matrimonial relationship. The relevant portion from the
judgment is reproduced hereinunder:
4. The first motion dated 03.09.2022 for divorce on mutual
consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 was moved by both the parties along with settlement
entered into between them, which was recorded by the
Family Court on 14.09.2022. But before the second
motion, the respondent-wife resiled from the agreement
which prompted the appellant to approach the High
Court of Bombay for quashing the criminal proceedings
pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court at
Sewree, Mumbai arising out of CR No. 63 of 2018 dated
192 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
19.04.2018. The principal ground raised before the High
Court was the appellant’s withdrawal from the divorce on
mutual consent, which according to the appellant justified
the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The appellant
also moved the High Court of Delhi alleging contempt
insofar as withdrawing from the consent and refusing to
follow it up on the second motion before the Family Court.
A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court punished
the respondent for contempt which order was set aside by
the Division Bench on an appeal filed by the respondent.
XXXX
13. We have already found that the allegations in the
statement of 19.04.2018 based on which the crime was
registered against the appellant inter-alia under Section
498-A are common-place, banal and vague, without any
specific instances mentioned and filed one year after
the admitted separation of the couple. The High Court
in the impugned order has rejected the contention of the
appellant to quash the criminal proceedings with respect
to the agreement having been resiled from, at the second
motion. We cannot fault the findings of the High Court that
the ground raised of the respondent-wife having withdrawn
from her consent on the second motion, is perfectly in
exercise of the statutory right of the respondent-wife.
However, but for a casual reference to the other grounds
set out in the petition, the High Court has not considered
those at all. It was observed peremptorily that the contrary
statements of the witnesses should be tested in a trial and
there is no question of the veracity of the allegations in the
FIR or charge-sheet being considered, at this stage. This
cannot be upheld especially when the statement leading
to the charge-sheet does not have any grounds leading
to an allegation under Section 498-A of the IPC.
14. We have already held, but for marital squabbles
blown out of proportion there is nothing substantial in the
complainant leading to the registration of crime under
Section 498-A. Reference can be usefully made to the
trite principle for exercise of powers under Section 482 of
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 193
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
Cr. P.C. from the oft quoted decision in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal2. Suffice to refer to one of the grounds laid
down by the Constitution Bench, but with a caveat that
there cannot be any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guideline or rigid formulae :
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirely do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.”
15. The respondent who appeared in person has
specifically taken us through the Division Bench order of the
High Court of Delhi which absolved her from the contempt
proceedings; especially the observation that the attempt
of initiating the contempt is only a coercion to participate
in the second motion for divorce. It was also found that
an affidavit of undertaking recorded at the first motion
would crystallise into an undertaking only if the terms
are agreed upon and divorce is consented to by both the
parties at the second motion. We are quite in agreement
with the finding regarding the second motion, as already
observed. But on the question of the maintainability of
contempt proceedings, we need not say anything further,
since it has been informed across the Bar that there is
an SLP filed from the said order and that in the event of
closure of all proceedings under Article 142, the appellant
would not pursue the same.
16. The facts as detailed by us herein above and
the acrimonious relations between the parties for the
last 8 years without any let-up and the multiple legal
proceedings pending, clearly indicate that the relationship
has irretrievably broken down. We are convinced that the
invocation of Article 142 is imperative in the above case to
do complete justice to both the parties, on being satisfied
that the marriage has been rendered totally unworkable,
emotionally dead and beyond salvation as held in Shilpa
Sailesh1. What remains is only the terms on which the
parties could go their separate ways to live their lives
194 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
independently, without the yoke of a troubled marriage.
The terms of the settlement agreed upon according to us,
does justice to the estranged wife and does not unduly
burden the husband.
XXX
21. We hence quash the criminal proceedings initiated
as CC No. 136/PW/2018 pending before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, 15thCourt at Sewree Mumbai for offence
punishable under Section 498-A, 406 r/w Section 34 of
the IPC. We also allow the application filed under Article
142 of the Constitution of India dissolving the marriage
between the appellant and the second respondent finding
the marriage to have irretrievably broken down, in the best
interest of both the parties and for doing complete justice,
but subject to the following terms:
I) The appellant shall deposit the entire arrears to the
Society as on today and upto 1st September, 2025, with
the Society as the maintenance charges for the apartment
namely A-52, Kalpataru Habitat, Dr. S.S. Rao Road,
Mumbai, alongwith the two car parking areas upon which
the Society shall give a no-encumbrance certificate to
the appellant as also issue the ownership certificate in
his name.
II) Along with the above documents the appellant shall
execute a gift deed on or before 30.08.2025 on any
date informed by written notice; by the appellant to the
respondent, with due acknowledgment taken.
III) We have seen from the records that the draft of the
deed was exchanged between the parties and both the
appellant and the respondent No. 2 shall be present before
the jurisdictional Registrar for execution and registration
on the date notified.
IV) If the respondent No. 2 does not turn up on the said
date, the jurisdictional Registrar shall acknowledge and
record the presence of the appellant and in that event
the appellant and the respondent shall be present on
15.09.2025 before the Registrar for execution of the deed.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 195
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
V) If the appellant does not comply with the above, then
the order of divorce shall not come into effect. However,
if the respondent does not present herself on the date
notified by the appellant and on such failure even on the
date specified by us, the divorce shall come into effect.
VI) All proceedings, civil and criminal, initiated by the parties
to the marriage now dissolved, in relation to or arising out
of such marriage, shall stand closed. There shall also be
no further proceedings, both civil and criminal instituted,
by the respective parties, on any aspect arising out of in
relation to the marriage.
22. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed along with the
application under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the
second respondent on the ground of irretrievable break
down, subject to the terms and conditions specified above.
All proceedings pending between the parties shall stand
closed and there shall be no further proceedings initiated
by either parties, relatable to their marriage, which stands
dissolved by this judgment, on the terms and conditions
being complied with.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
28. Again coming to the facts of the case, even at the cost of repetition,
we would like to mention that as per the Settlement Agreement, the
Appellant-Husband was to pay ₹75,00,000/- as first installment of
the final settlement amount along with a sum of ₹14,00,000/- for
purchase of the car, both of which had been complied with. The
Appellant-Husband has also returned the jewellery items as per
APPENDIX A to P to the Respondent-Wife. The Respondent-Wife, as
part of her obligations under the Settlement Agreement, transferred
₹2,52,38,794/- to the Appellant-Husband at the time of filing the First
Motion Petition.
29. However, the Respondent-Wife refused to honour the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and refused to sign the Second Motion Petition
stating that she had withdrawn her consent from the divorce. Though
it is well within the law, for any party, to withdraw consent at any
196 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
30. 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. This Court in the case of Gimpex Private
Limited v. Manoj Goel, reported as (2022) 11 SCC 705, while
dealing with a compromise entered between the parties in case of
cheque dishonour, held that the parties cannot be allowed to reverse
the effect of a settlement agreement by pursuing either original or
subsequent complaints. A three-Judge Bench of this Court therein
emphasized that a settlement once entered and authenticated by a
mediator subsumed the original complaint. The relevant portion of
the said judgment is reproduced herein under:
“41. When a complainant party enters into a compromise
agreement with the accused, it may be for a multitude
of reasons — higher compensation, faster recovery of
money, uncertainty of trial and strength of the complaint,
among others. A complainant enters into a settlement with
open eyes and undertakes the risk of the accused failing
to honour the cheques issued pursuant to the settlement,
based on certain benefits that the settlement agreement
postulates. Once parties have voluntarily entered into such
an agreement and agree to abide by the consequences of
non-compliance of the settlement agreement, they cannot
be allowed to reverse the effects of the agreement by
pursuing both the original complaint and the subsequent
complaint arising from such non-compliance. The
settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.
Non-compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement
or dishonour of cheques issued subsequent to it, would
then give rise to a fresh cause of action attracting liability
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 197
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
under Section 138 of the NI Act and other remedies under
civil law and criminal law.
XXX
C.2. Liability arising from the settlement agreement
49. Once a settlement agreement has been entered into
between the parties, the parties are bound by the terms of
the agreement and any violation of the same may result
in consequential action in civil and criminal law.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. 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.
32. The Respondent-Wife alleged that the Appellant-Husband assured
the Respondent-Wife that apart from the considerations specified in
the Settlement Agreement, the Appellant-Husband would give ₹120
Crores worth of jewellery along with gold biscuits worth ₹50 Crores
in lieu of the stridhan (apart from those mentioned in the Settlement
Agreement) to her before signing of the Second Motion Petition.
However, since the Appellant-Husband did not adhere to his promise,
the Respondent-Wife did not sign the Second Motion Petition.
33. Another argument raised by the Respondent-Wife, that she only
agreed to exclude these terms from the Settlement Agreement upon
being asked so by the Appellant-Husband in order to avoid alerting
the Income Tax Department and to evade any liability towards wealth
tax, is highly egregious. 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.
34. We are not impressed by the reasons given by the learned counsel
of the Respondent-Wife for resiling out of the Settlement Agreement.
It is difficult to comprehend as to why in the Settlement Agreement
the condition for return of jewelleries and gold biscuits have not
been mentioned. It is an admitted position that the Respondent-
198 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Wife had signed the Settlement Agreement and we are not sure as
to why she, being a mature and educated woman assisted by her
advocate, did not press for the inclusion of these conditions in the
Settlement Agreement.
35. In addition, we find no plausible explanation as to why the
Respondent-Wife waited for eight long months from the date of
the Second Motion Petition before initiating the DV proceedings.
It is evident from the WhatsApp chats dated 17.02.2025 between
them, wherein the Respondent-Wife listed all articles she sought
to be returned, that were not a part of the Settlement Agreement,
that the said list did not make any mention whatsoever of any
jewellery worth ₹120 crores or gold biscuits worth ₹50 crores,
which she claims were assured to her by the Appellant-Husband.
Notably, these allegations were raised for the first time only in the
DV complaint. This prolonged delay in raising such a substantial
ground raises serious suspicion as to the credibility and authenticity
of the allegations made therein in blatant disregard of the terms
of the Settlement Agreement. In addition to this, with regard to
the email sent by the counsel for the Appellant-Husband dated
21.02.2025, wherein it was mentioned that the Appellant-Husband
would make good all other obligations, apart from those mentioned
in the Settlement Agreement, it must have been in pursuance of the
list of items sent by the Respondent-Wife through the WhatsApp
chat dated 17.02.2025 and it cannot be construed in such a manner
that it would have included the demands for jewellery worth ₹120
Crores or gold biscuits worth ₹50 Crores.
36. Reliance was placed upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent-
Wife on certain judgments, however, all the said cases would not
apply in the present case for the following reasons:
A. Smt Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, reported as (1991) 2
SCC 25: The Respondent-Wife relied on the said judgment
to the effect that the consent of the parties must subsist not
only at the stage of filing of the petition but also, is required to
continue to exist till the passing of the final decree. However,
in the present case, regarding the withdrawal of consent before
the Second Motion, the Respondent-Wife could not prove any
fraud, force, or undue influence and her withdrawal of consent
is merely on the ground of non-adherence to the promise made
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 199
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
by the Appellant-Husband which was not even the part of the
Settlement Agreement and thus, cannot benefit her to initiate
another proceeding.
B. Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar, reported as (2011) 5
SCC 234: The Respondent relied on the said judgment to the
effect that one of the parties could withdraw his/her consent
at any time before passing of the decree. In the said case, the
agreement was entered into between the parties independently,
however, in the present case the settlement was arrived upon
mediation between the parties on specific order of the Court
and which was also later ratified by the Court.
C. Smruti Pahariya v. Sanjay Pahariya, reported as (2009) 12
SCC 338: The said judgment of the Court was given after
following the reasoning given in the case of Surestha Devi
(supra) which has been already distinguished above.
Proceedings under the DV Act
37. A careful perusal of the complaint filed by the Respondent-Wife under
the DV Act depicts that there are no specific allegations regarding
any sort of domestic violence that could emanate from the pleadings.
The Respondent-Wife has failed to mention any event describing any
sort of violence carried out either by the Appellant-Husband or his
mother. A criminal complaint regarding domestic violence, with mere
reference to the names of the family members or the 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.
38. While we are conscious of the fact that the parties to a long standing
marital dispute are often fuelled by emotions, we cannot allow such
emotions to take a drastic turn in as much as allowing the bursts
of emotions to form the basis of criminal prosecution. Such criminal
prosecution, if allowed, would lead to an abuse of law and cause
harassment.
39. It is evident from the petition filed by the Respondent-Wife that apart
from the Appellant-Husband’s non-compliance with the condition of
giving ₹120 Crores and gold biscuits worth ₹50 Crores, all the other
allegations seems to be trivial disagreements exaggerated, solely to
justify the institution of the complaint under the DV Act.
200 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
40. Moreover, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that, admittedly, since
the last couple of years (from 2022-23), the Respondent-Wife is
living separately from the Appellant-Husband. 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.
41. Therefore, we are of the view that the proceedings under the DV
Act as initiated by the Respondent-Wife are liable to be quashed,
the continuance of which would be an abuse of the process of law.
ARTICLE 142(1) AND IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF
MARRIAGE
42. Now we shall proceed on to adjudicate upon the application filed by
the Appellant-Husband under Article 142(1) to examine if in the instant
case, exercise of powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of
India for dissolution of marriage would be justified.
43. Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India grants powers to the
Supreme Court to pass any orders or decree in order to achieve
complete justice. Article 142(1) has been reproduced hereinbelow
for easy reference:
“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of the
Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.—(1)
The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may
pass such decree or make such order as is necessary
for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending
before it, and any decree so passed or order so made
shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in
such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law
made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is
so made, in such manner as the President may by order
prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf
by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 201
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
the whole of the territory of India, have all and every
power to make any order for the purpose of securing the
attendance of any person, the discovery or production of
any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any
contempt of itself.”
This vast power vested in the highest court of the country by the
insertion of the phrase “such order as is necessary for doing complete
justice” has been done with the intent to protect the interests of the
persons (and not merely “the litigants”) approaching the institution of
judiciary with the hopes of seeking justice. Having been empowered
with these extraordinary powers, it is the quintessential duty of this
Court to ensure that the parties who are present before it are not
left remediless merely because certain statutory gaps exist and their
rights are adequately safeguarded.
44. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a valid ground under
the Act for the ground of divorce. The Act permits a decree of
divorce to be passed either when certain matrimonial offences have
been committed by either party or through mutual consent. The
jurisprudence pertaining to the grant of divorce under Article 142(1)
on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage has been
developed with caution through various judgments.
45. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the judgment of Shilpa Sailesh v.
Varun Sreenivasan, reported as (2023) 14 SCC 231 held that the
power to grant divorce under the aegis of Article 142(1) is exercisable
by this Court only in those cases where in the opinion of the Court,
there has been a “complete and irretrievable breakdown” of the
marriage. This Court therein however specified that irretrievable
breakdown of marriage has to be ascertained factually while weighing
all the underlying circumstances. This relevant paragraphs from
Shilpa Sailesh to this effect are reproduced hereinbelow:
“62. Having said so, we wish to clearly state that grant
of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage by this Court is not a matter of right, but a
discretion which is to be exercised with great care and
caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that
‘complete justice’ is done to both parties. It is obvious
that this Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that
the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and
202 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage
is the right solution and the only way forward.
63. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to
be factually determined and firmly established. For this,
several factors are to be considered such as the period
of time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when
the parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations
made by the parties against each other and their family
members; the orders passed in the legal proceedings
from time to time, cumulative impact on the personal
relationship; whether, and how many attempts were made
to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through
mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc.
The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and
anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor.
But these facts have to be evaluated keeping in view the
economic and social status of the parties, including their
educational qualifications, whether the parties have any
children, their age, educational qualification, and whether
the other spouse and children are dependent, in which
event how and in what manner the party seeking divorce
intends to take care and provide for the spouse or the
children. Question of custody and welfare of minor children,
provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and
economic rights of the children and other pending matters,
if any, are relevant considerations. We would not like to
codify the factors so as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which is
situation specific. Some of the factors mentioned can be
taken as illustrative, and worthy of consideration.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
46. In Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 686,
it was held that the Court is required to take a holistic view on the
relationship between the parties and then conclude whether there
is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The relevant portion from
the judgment is reproduced herein below:
“43. Unlike a divorce proceeding before the Family Court,
where the court is bound by the fault-divorce provisions
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 203
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
contained in the HMA and other allied legislations and
thus has to necessarily appreciate the evidence to give a
finding about whether a party had indeed committed the
alleged matrimonial offence or not, this Court while dealing
with an application seeking divorce under Article 142(1)
of the Constitution can depart from the said procedure as
well as the substantive laws by acting as a problem solver
and balancing out the equities between the conflicting
claims. This Court is therefore not required to look deep
into the veracity of the detailed allegations made by the
parties against each other to find as to who is at fault,
but is required to take a holistic view on the relationship
between the parties and conclude if there is an irretrievable
breakdown of the marriage and the parties have no scope of
reconciliation. Thus, the thrust of considering an application
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution is in order to
ascertain whether there is an irretrievable breakdown of
marriage between the parties and as a result, it is in their
interest that they should part ways by passing a decree
of divorce by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142(1)
of the Constitution and thereby doing complete justice
between the parties.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
47. Even recently, in the case of Trisha Singh (supra) this Court was
faced with a similar situation wherein the wife resiled from the terms
of settlement as agreed before the mediator, and this Court while
relying upon Ruchi Agarwal (supra) held that such conduct from
wife proves that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down
and therefore granted divorce under Article 142(1) of the Constitution
of India. The relevant portions from the judgment are reproduced
hereinunder:
“3. It is thus manifest that there was a clear undertaking
by the parties before the Mediator that they shall part
ways peacefully.
4. It is also clear that the respondent-husband had
voluntarily paid a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for the support of his
child during the period from March, 2020 to October, 2023.
The respondent-husband also paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs
204 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to the petitioner-wife in the terms of the settlement. The
remaining amount of permanent alimony has been agreed
to be paid as per the schedule indicated in the settlement
deed. Out of this agreed amount, the respondent-husband
has paid a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-(fifty lacs) only to the
petitioner-wife.
5. However, today when the matter was taken up, this
Court was apprised that the petitioner-wife seems to have
resiled from the settlement agreement.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has affirmed
that his client has stopped instructing him in the matter.
Acting on the terms of the settlement, the respondent-
husband has already withdrawn the matrimonial case on
23rd April, 2024 which fact is recorded in the order sheet
of the Family Court placed on record with I.A. No. 112620
of 2024 and thus he is abiding by the terms of settlement
in letter and spirit.
7. It seems, the petitioner-wife having taken advantage of
the settlement executed before the Mediator has managed
to get the matrimonial case instituted by the respondent-
husband withdrawn. She has also accepted a sum of Rs. 50
lakhs from the respondent-husband towards part payment of
the permanent alimony and thereafter, she is trying to resile
from the settlement without any justification. The conduct
of the petitioner-wife is clearly, recalcitrant inasmuch as
she has disregarded the terms and conditions agreed
before the Mediator in the settlement proceedings which
were undertaken pursuant to the directions of this Court.
Not only this, because of her conduct, the respondent-
husband has been put to grave disadvantage inasmuch
as he has withdrawn the matrimonial case and has also
paid a significant proportion of the permanent alimony to
the petitioner-wife in terms of the settlement agreement.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband on
instructions states that his client undertakes to abide
by the remaining terms and conditions of the settlement
agreement in letter and spirit and shall make due payments
on the schedule dates if the marriage is dissolved.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 205
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
9. A similar situation was examined by this Court in the
case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal….
XXXX
10. On going through the material available on record, we
find that the matrimonial relations between the spouses
have broken down irrevocably and there is no possibility
of reconciliation and revival of the spousal relationship.
Hence, looking at the conduct of the petitioner-wife
as indicated supra and the other attending facts and
circumstances, we are inclined to exercise the powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to grant
decree of divorce and hence, the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent is dissolved.
11. However, it is made clear that the respondent in terms
of the settlement shall make the remaining payment to
the petitioner.
12. The petition is allowed in these terms.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
48. The aforesaid line of reasoning has been continuously adopted by
this Court in a catena of judgments including but not limited to Vishal
Shah v. Monalisha Gupta reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 383;
Vineet Taneja v. Ritu Johari reported in (2025) 3 SCC 732; Neha
Lal v. Abhishek Kumar reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 95.
49. A perusal of the dicta laid down by this Court in the above mentioned
judgments and several others holding authority on the said law point
makes it crystal clear that the Court while exercising its power under
Article 142(1) for grant of divorce has to first conclude that there has
been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
50. In the case at hand, the Appellant-Husband had first filed a divorce
petition being H.M.A. No. 275/2023 under Sections 13(1)(i-a) & 13(1)
(i)(a) of the Act, which was later withdrawn as per the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. Further, in the petition for divorce by mutual
consent filed on joint petition by both the parties, First Motion Petition
has been allowed vide order dated 14.08.2024 and the Second
Motion Petition has not been filed as yet.
206 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
51. Apart from the above, the parties have been admittedly living
separately from around 2022-23. Both the children of the parties
have attained majority and are now living their respective lives.
Moreover, even after the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent-
Wife proceeded to file a case of domestic violence against the
Appellant-Husband and his mother. Thus, we are convinced that the
sacrosanct thread tying the 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.
52. On going through the materials on record, it is evident that there
has been a complete and irretrievable breakdown of the matrimonial
relationship between the parties. In such a case, when there is no
scope of parties peacefully co-existing together, we see no point in
continuation of any sorts of litigation in between the parties arising
solely out of the matrimonial discord.
53. Thus, in the light of the abovestated facts, we conclude that the
present is a fit case for exercise of powers under Article 142(1) to
grant a divorce as there had been an irretrievable breakdown of
the marriage.
Prevailing Position of the Settlement between the Parties
54. We notice that various terms and conditions have been set out in
the Settlement Agreement and out of all such conditions, some have
been already performed by the parties and the rest are yet to be
completed. The following table indicates the terms of the Settlement
Agreement between the parties and their status:
S. Status of
Condition of the Settlement Agreement
No. Completion
1. Dissolution of Marriage by Mutual Partially Completed:
Consent: Parties agreed to dissolve their The First Motion was
marriage under Section 13B(1) and 13B(2) jointly filed and granted
of the Hindu Marriage Act by filing a joint by the Family Court on
petition. 14.08.2024, However,
the Second Motion
was not signed as
the Respondent-Wife
withdrew her consent.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 207
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
2. Withdrawal of Fault-Based Divorce
Petition: The Appellant-Husband undertook
to withdraw his pending Divorce Petition Completed
(H.M.A. No. 275/2023) filed on grounds of
adultery and cruelty.
3. Payment of First Installment (Alimony):
Appellant-Husband agreed to pay
₹75,00,000/- via Demand Draft towards full Completed
and final settlement at the time of recording
the First Motion.
4. Payment for Purchase of a New Car:
Appellant-Husband agreed to pay an
additional ₹14,00,000/- via Demand Draft Completed
for the purchase of a car at the time of the
First Motion.
5. Handing over of Jewellery (Appendix A to
P): Appellant-Husband agreed to hand over
specific jewellery items listed in Appendix Completed
A to P to the Respondent-Wife at the time
of the First Motion.
6. Execution of Gift Deed/Indemnity for
Funds: Respondent-Wife agreed to
execute a Gift Deed/forfeit her claim to Completed
₹2,52,38,794/- to validate accounts reflected
in the Appellant-Husband business.
7. Relinquishment of Properties, Shares,
and Policies: Respondent-Wife obligated
to forfeit her rights and execute transfer
documents/gift deeds for properties (in Pending/Not
Mascot & Neo Town), LIC/Bajaj Allianz Complete
policies, and company shares (Globe
Capital, K.L. Rathi Steels) back to the
Husband.
8. Investment in PPF Account & Handover
of Passbook: A Sum of ₹4,77,129/- has
been invested in the PPF Account No.
152900PPF00000031787 under the name Pending/Not
of the Respondent-Wife. The Appellant- Complete
Husband was required to hand over the
PPF passbook to the Wife at the time of
recording the Second Motion
208 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
9. Payment of Second Installment
(Alimony): Appellant-Husband agreed to
Pending/Not
pay the remaining balance of ₹70,22,871/-
Completed
via Demand Draft at the time of recording
the Second Motion.
10. Bar on Future Litigation: Both parties
undertook that neither they nor their family
Breached/Not
members would institute any civil or criminal
Completed
proceedings against each other regarding
the matrimonial discord in the future.
DIRECTIONS
55. In the above situation, we pass the following directions:
i. The criminal appeal stands allowed and the proceedings
initiated by the Respondent-Wife pursuant to DV Complaint
No. 3186/2025 are quashed hereby and the Impugned Order
is set aside.
ii. The application filed by the Appellant-Husband under Article
142(1) for grant of divorce stands allowed and the marriage
between the party is dissolved subject to the terms specified
hereunder.
iii. Contempt Case (C) No. 19 of 2026 pending before the High Court
of Delhi filed by the Appellant-Husband and all consequential
proceedings thereto stands closed.
iv. The Appellant-Husband shall pay the remaining amount of
₹70,22,871/- (after deduction of a sum of ₹4,77,129/- towards
PPF Account) and he shall also handover the passbook of the
said PPF Account in the bank account of the Respondent-Wife
within two (2) weeks from the date of the judgment. In case the
Appellant-Husband fails to comply with the same, the divorce
shall not come into effect.
v. Immediately after the transfer of the amount mentioned in
the preceding clause, on the next working day, the parties
shall appear before the jurisdictional Registrar to execute all
the relinquishment deeds as agreed between the parties as
per Clause 8(E) of the Settlement Agreement within four (4)
weeks from the date of the judgment. If the Respondent-Wife
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 209
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
fails to appear on the said date, the jurisdictional Registrar
shall acknowledge and record the presence of the parties
and the Registrar shall register such deed in the favour of the
Appellant-Husband on the said date itself and the rights of the
Respondent-Wife would be relinquished.
vi. The amount of ₹89,00,000 as deposited by the Respondent-
Wife before the High Court of Delhi shall be returned back to
her along with the interest accrued on the said amount within
two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the bank details
submitted by the Respondent-Wife to the Registrar General of
the High Court.
vii. All proceedings, civil and criminal, initiated by the Appellant-
Husband or the Respondent-Wife, their family members,
relatives, friends, in relation to or arising out of such marriage
between the parties, shall stand closed and quashed. In
addition to this, there shall be a complete bar on all future
proceedings, either civil or criminal, by the Appellant-Husband
or the Respondent-Wife, their family members, relatives, friends,
on any aspect arising out of or in relation to the marriage.
viii. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Courts concerned
for taking action as per the directions in this judgment. However,
if there is any other case arising out of the matrimonial dispute,
though not mentioned in the list, but pending, the same shall
also stand disposed of on production of a copy of this judgment
by the parties.
56. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Settlement Agreement"Sign in to search