The law governing divorce by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is premised on the continued willingness of both spouses to dissolve the marriage amicably. However, a recurring legal dilemma arises when one party, after entering into a comprehensive settlement and receiving substantial benefits, withdraws consent at a later stage.
In Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026 INSC 360), the Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial issue and clarified the legal position regarding withdrawal of consent after settlement. The Court held that while consent can ordinarily be withdrawn before the final decree, such withdrawal is impermissible where parties have entered into a binding settlement and acted upon it.
Facts of the Case
The marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnised in 2000, and two children were born out of wedlock. Due to matrimonial disputes, the parties started living separately around 2022–23.
Subsequently, the husband filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The matter was referred to mediation, where the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 16 May 2024, resolving all disputes.
Key Terms of the Settlement
- Both parties agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B.
- The husband agreed to pay ₹1.5 crore as full and final settlement.
- ₹75 lakh was to be paid at the first motion and the balance at the second motion.
- Jewellery, property rights, shares, and financial assets were to be transferred as agreed.
- Both parties undertook not to initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against each other.
The settlement was acted upon:
- The first motion for divorce was allowed.
- ₹75 lakh and other benefits were paid to the wife.
- The wife transferred significant financial assets to the husband.
However, before the second motion, the wife withdrew her consent and later initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:
- Whether a party can withdraw consent after entering into and acting upon a settlement agreement?
- Whether proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act could continue despite the settlement?
- Whether the Court could grant divorce under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage?
Legal Position on Mutual Consent Divorce
Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act:
- Divorce requires mutual consent at both stages: first motion and second motion.
- Consent must subsist till the final decree.
The Court acknowledged earlier precedents like Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, which held that consent can be withdrawn at any stage before the decree.
However, the present case required a deeper examination due to the existence of a binding settlement and partial performance.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
1. Binding Nature of Settlement Agreements
The Court emphasised that:
- A settlement reached through mediation is binding and enforceable.
- Once parties act upon such settlement, they cannot resile arbitrarily.
The Court observed:
Parties who voluntarily enter into a settlement and derive benefits cannot later withdraw from it to gain an undue advantage.
The Court relied on precedents such as:
- Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal
- Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Goel
These cases establish that settlements subsume prior disputes and must be honoured.
2. Withdrawal of Consent – Not Absolute
While acknowledging the general rule that consent may be withdrawn, the Court carved out an important limitation:
Withdrawal is not permissible when:
- A valid settlement exists, and
- The parties have already acted upon it
The Court held:
It is not open for a party to step back from a settlement agreement without valid justification such as fraud, coercion, or non-performance.
3. Exceptions to Settlement Binding Nature
The Court clarified that a party may resile from a settlement only if:
- The agreement was obtained by fraud, force, or undue influence, or
- There is non-fulfilment of essential conditions by the other party
In the present case:
- The wife failed to prove any such grounds
- Allegations regarding undisclosed jewellery worth crores were found unsubstantiated and implausible
4. Abuse of Process of Law
The Court took a strict view of the wife’s conduct:
- She accepted substantial monetary benefits
- Then withdrew consent without valid reasons
- Initiated fresh litigation under the DV Act
The Court held that such conduct amounts to:
Abuse of process and misuse of legal remedies to extract further financial gains.
5. Domestic Violence Proceedings
The Supreme Court carefully examined the DV complaint and found:
- No specific allegations of domestic violence
- Claims were vague and exaggerated
- Complaint was filed after settlement disputes
The Court concluded:
The proceedings were an afterthought and liable to be quashed.
6. Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
The Court noted:
- Parties had been living separately for years.
- Relationship had become emotionally dead.
- Multiple litigations indicated complete breakdown.
Relying on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, the Court held that:
- Irretrievable breakdown is a valid ground under Article 142.
- Court can dissolve marriage to do complete justice.
Exercise of Article 142 Powers
Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court:
- Granted divorce despite withdrawal of consent
- Enforced the settlement terms
- Quashed all pending proceedings
The Court observed:
Where marriage is beyond repair, prolonging litigation serves no purpose and causes further hardship.
Key Highlights
Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi stated:
“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 bythe Court should be dealt with strictly as such deviation harbors an attack to the foundational basis of the entire process of mediation.”
Decision
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- Divorce granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
- DV proceedings quashed.
- Settlement terms enforced
- Remaining payment to be completed within stipulated time.
- All litigations between parties have been brought to an end
Importantly, the Court ensured that:
- Financial obligations were honoured
- Rights of both parties were balanced
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi marks a significant development in matrimonial jurisprudence. It clarifies that while mutual consent is essential for divorce, it cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily after parties have entered into and acted upon a binding settlement.
By enforcing settlements and quashing abusive litigation, the Court has reinforced the principles of fairness, finality, and judicial efficiency. The judgment also highlights the evolving role of Article 142 in resolving complex matrimonial disputes where statutory provisions fall short.
Ultimately, the ruling ensures that justice is not defeated by technicalities or strategic misuse of legal rights, thereby strengthening the legal framework governing matrimonial disputes in India.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams