Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce

"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," Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated April 13, 2026, held that a party cannot be permitted to back out of a court-ratified mediated settlement agreement after accepting its financial benefits, ruling that such conduct amounts to a blatant abuse of the legal process.

A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi quashed a domestic violence complaint filed by a wife after she had received ₹89 lakhs under a mutual divorce settlement, observing that the proceedings were "premeditated" and filed merely to sustain litigation after she had resiled from the agreed terms.

The parties, married in 2000, separated in 2022 due to matrimonial discord, leading the husband to file a fault-based divorce petition. The matter was referred to mediation, resulting in a Settlement Agreement where the parties agreed to seek mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the husband paid ₹89 lakhs along with jewellery as part of the settlement. However, before the Second Motion, the wife withdrew her consent and instead filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The husband approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court permitted the DV proceedings to continue, subject to the wife depositing the received settlement amount.

The primary question before the court was whether criminal proceedings initiated under the DV Act should be quashed when a party resiles from a mediated settlement agreement after receiving its benefits. The court was also called upon to determine whether a decree of divorce could be granted under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, despite the wife withdrawing her consent to the mutual divorce.

Deviation From Settlements Undermines Mediation

The bench noted that once parties voluntarily enter into a settlement agreement that is duly authenticated by a mediator and ratified by the court, resiling from its terms without proving fraud, force, or undue influence cannot be permitted. The court emphasised that allowing parties to reverse the effects of such agreements undermines the alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The judges remarked that "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."

Exaggerated Claims To Evade Settlement

The court strongly deprecated the wife's justification for resiling, which was based on an alleged oral promise by the husband to give her ₹120 crores in jewellery and ₹50 crores in gold biscuits outside the written agreement. Noting that she was a mature, educated woman assisted by legal counsel, the court found her claim that these terms were intentionally hidden to evade wealth tax to be legally untenable. The bench stated, "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 Complaint As An Abuse Of Process

Analyzing the complaint filed under Section 12 of the DV Act, the court found it entirely bereft of specific allegations of domestic violence against the husband or his mother. The bench observed that the complaint was an afterthought, filed eight months after the Second Motion deadline and only after the husband had initiated contempt proceedings for breach of the settlement. The court noted that a criminal complaint regarding domestic violence, with mere reference to the names of family members without any specific allegations of active involvement, "shall be nipped in the bud."

"Such criminal prosecution, if allowed, would lead to an abuse of law and cause harassment."

"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."

Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage

Addressing the husband's application for divorce under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the court reiterated that while fault-based divorce requires strict statutory compliance, the Supreme Court possesses extraordinary jurisdiction to dissolve an emotionally dead marriage. Relying on Constitution Bench precedents like Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and subsequent rulings like Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, the bench held that the factual matrix proved the matrimonial bond was completely beyond salvation.

Holistic View On Matrimonial Disputes

The court held that it is not required to adjudicate on who is at fault when exercising discretionary powers under Article 142(1), but must instead take a holistic view of the relationship. Noting the prolonged separation since 2022, the maturity of their children, and the multiple rounds of litigation initiated to thwart the settlement, the bench concluded that the relationship had irretrievably broken down. The court affirmed that the vast power vested under Article 142(1) exists to "protect the interests of the persons... approaching the institution of judiciary with the hopes of seeking justice."

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the domestic violence proceedings, and set aside the impugned Delhi High Court order. Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the court granted a decree of divorce, subject to the husband paying the remaining agreed alimony of ₹70,22,871/-, and directed the closure of all pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties.

Date of Decision: 13 April 2026