Table of Contents
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
Citation: 2026 INSC 360
Introduction
The Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of mutual divorce consent withdrawal, held that although a party may withdraw consent before the final decree, such withdrawal is not permissible when the parties have already entered into a full and final settlement resolving all disputes. The Court emphasized that settlement agreements reached through mediation must be respected and cannot be casually disregarded.
Factual Background
The parties were married in 2000 and later developed matrimonial disputes, leading to separation around 2022–23. The husband filed a divorce petition, which was referred to mediation by the Family Court. During mediation, the parties entered into a detailed settlement agreement in 2024, resolving all their disputes. As per the agreement, the husband agreed to pay ₹1.5 crore along with other financial and property-related obligations, while the wife agreed to withdraw all pending and future claims and to proceed with divorce by mutual consent.
Pursuant to the settlement, both parties performed substantial parts of their obligations. The husband paid a significant portion of the settlement amount and returned jewellery, while the wife also transferred funds as agreed. The first motion for divorce by mutual consent was allowed by the Family Court.
Dispute
However, before the second motion, the wife withdrew her consent for divorce and subsequently initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. Aggrieved by this conduct and the High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings, the husband approached the Supreme Court.
Issue
The principal issue before the Court was whether mutual divorce consent withdrawal is permissible after parties have entered into a binding settlement agreement and acted upon it.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court clarified that under matrimonial law, a party is generally entitled to withdraw consent before the final decree in a mutual divorce petition. However, this principle does not apply in cases where the parties have entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving all disputes through mediation. In such cases, the settlement acquires binding force and governs the rights and obligations of the parties.
The Court held that a party cannot accept benefits under a settlement and later refuse to comply with its terms. Allowing such conduct would undermine the sanctity of mediation and erode trust in dispute resolution mechanisms. The Court emphasized that mutual divorce consent withdrawal cannot be used as a tool to avoid obligations arising from a valid settlement.
The Court further observed that a party may resile from a settlement only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the agreement is vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence, or where the other party has failed to perform its obligations. In the present case, no such grounds were established.
Domestic Violence Proceedings
The Court also examined the Domestic Violence proceedings initiated by the wife and found that they lacked specific allegations and appeared to have been filed as an afterthought. The Court noted that the complaint was filed only after disputes arose regarding compliance with the settlement and appeared to be an attempt to continue litigation. Accordingly, it held that continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Exercise of Article 142
Considering the facts and the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce. The Court observed that the parties had been living separately for a considerable period and there was no possibility of reconciliation.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Domestic Violence proceedings, and dissolved the marriage between the parties. It also directed that the remaining terms of the settlement be complied with in accordance with law.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the binding nature of mediation settlements in matrimonial disputes. It makes clear that mutual divorce consent withdrawal is not an absolute right and cannot be exercised to defeat a valid settlement. The ruling strengthens the credibility of mediation and ensures that parties act in good faith while resolving disputes.
