Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
“You Cannot Cash the Cheque and Tear Up the Settlement: When a Mediated Divorce Deal Becomes Binding”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that once parties to a matrimonial dispute enter into a settlement agreement through court-monitored mediation, and one party has performed its obligations and conferred benefits on the other, the receiving party cannot resile from the settlement and revive or launch fresh litigation unless the settlement was procured by force, fraud or undue influence, or the other side failed to fulfil its conditions. Finding that the wife had accepted Rs. 89 lakh and her jewellery and then filed a belated, unparticularised Domestic Violence complaint, the Court quashed the DV proceedings as an abuse of process and, exercising its powers under Article 142(1), dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
The Bottom Line
A mediated settlement is not a tap you can turn off once the money is in your account. The Supreme Court ruled that a spouse who signs a settlement, pockets the benefits, and then files a vague domestic violence case eight months later to extract more money is abusing the legal process. The Court quashed the DV complaint and used Article 142 to grant divorce, holding the marriage was emotionally dead beyond salvation. The right to withdraw consent before a mutual-consent decree survives, but it cannot be weaponised to renege on a concluded bargain.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Marriage Solemnized
Dhananjay Rathi and Ruchika Rathi married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were later born to the couple in 2003 and 2006.
Marriage Solemnized
Dhananjay Rathi and Ruchika Rathi married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were later born to the couple in 2003 and 2006.
Husband Files Divorce Petition
After the parties began living separately around 2022-23, the husband filed H.M.A. No. 275/2023 under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and adultery.
Husband Files Divorce Petition
After the parties began living separately around 2022-23, the husband filed H.M.A. No. 275/2023 under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and adultery.
Settlement Agreement Signed in Mediation
Following court-referred mediation at the Delhi Mediation Centre, the parties signed a comprehensive Settlement Agreement resolving all disputes, including a Clause 12 bar on future litigation.
Settlement Agreement Signed in Mediation
Following court-referred mediation at the Delhi Mediation Centre, the parties signed a comprehensive Settlement Agreement resolving all disputes, including a Clause 12 bar on future litigation.
First Motion Allowed
The Family Court allowed the First Motion for divorce by mutual consent. The husband paid Rs. 75 lakh plus Rs. 14 lakh for a car and returned the jewellery; the wife transferred Rs. 2,52,38,794 to the husband.
First Motion Allowed
The Family Court allowed the First Motion for divorce by mutual consent. The husband paid Rs. 75 lakh plus Rs. 14 lakh for a car and returned the jewellery; the wife transferred Rs. 2,52,38,794 to the husband.
Wife Withdraws Consent
The Second Motion Petition was to be filed by this date. The wife refused to sign it and withdrew her consent to the mutual divorce, alleging unfulfilled oral promises of jewellery worth Rs. 120 crores and gold biscuits worth Rs. 50 crores.
Wife Withdraws Consent
The Second Motion Petition was to be filed by this date. The wife refused to sign it and withdrew her consent to the mutual divorce, alleging unfulfilled oral promises of jewellery worth Rs. 120 crores and gold biscuits worth Rs. 50 crores.
Wife Files Domestic Violence Complaint
After the husband filed and withdrew a contempt petition, the wife filed DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 under Section 12 of the DV Act against the husband and his mother — about eight months after withdrawing consent.
Wife Files Domestic Violence Complaint
After the husband filed and withdrew a contempt petition, the wife filed DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 under Section 12 of the DV Act against the husband and his mother — about eight months after withdrawing consent.
High Court Impugned Order
The Delhi High Court declined to quash the DV proceedings, allowing them to continue subject to the wife depositing Rs. 89,00,000 with the Registrar General and retaining her jewellery under restraint.
High Court Impugned Order
The Delhi High Court declined to quash the DV proceedings, allowing them to continue subject to the wife depositing Rs. 89,00,000 with the Registrar General and retaining her jewellery under restraint.
Supreme Court Delivers Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the DV proceedings as an abuse of process, and exercised Article 142(1) to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, subject to compliance with the settlement terms.
Supreme Court Delivers Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the DV proceedings as an abuse of process, and exercised Article 142(1) to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, subject to compliance with the settlement terms.
The Story
Dhananjay Rathi and Ruchika Rathi were married on 19 February 2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple had two children — a daughter born on 6 June 2003 and a son born on 1 January 2006, both of whom had attained majority by the time of the dispute. Due to temperamental differences, matrimonial discord set in and the spouses began living separately from around 2022-23.
On 30 January 2023, the husband filed a Divorce Petition (H.M.A. No. 275/2023) under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and adultery before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket Court House, Delhi. The Family Court referred the matter to the Delhi Mediation Centre, and after mediation the parties signed a comprehensive Settlement Agreement on 16 May 2024 resolving all their disputes.
Under the Settlement Agreement the husband agreed to pay the wife Rs. 1,50,00,000 in two installments towards full and final settlement, plus Rs. 14,00,000 for purchase of a car, and to hand over specified jewellery (Appendix A to P). The wife agreed to execute a gift deed validating Rs. 2,52,38,794 reflected in the husband's business accounts, and to relinquish her rights in various properties in Greater Noida, LIC and Bajaj Allianz policies, and company shares. Crucially, Clause 12 of the agreement barred both parties and their families from instituting any future civil or criminal proceedings against each other arising from the matrimonial discord.
Pursuant to the settlement, the husband withdrew his fault-based divorce petition and the parties jointly filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B(1) of the Act (H.M.A. No. 1185/2024), signing affidavits of undertaking dated 3 July 2024. On 14 August 2024 the Family Court allowed the First Motion. The husband paid the first installment of Rs. 75,00,000 and Rs. 14,00,000 for the car, returned the jewellery, and the wife transferred Rs. 2,52,38,794 to the husband.
The Second Motion was to be filed by 20 February 2025. However, the wife refused to sign it and withdrew her consent to the mutual divorce. She alleged that she had agreed to the settlement only on the husband's oral assurance that he would return jewellery worth Rs. 120 crores and gold biscuits worth Rs. 50 crores — terms deliberately kept out of the written agreement, she claimed, to avoid alerting the Income Tax Department. The husband filed a contempt petition, then withdrew it and filed a Quashing Petition before the Delhi High Court. The wife, in turn, filed DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 16 October 2025 against the husband and his mother.
By the Impugned Order dated 7 January 2026, the High Court declined to quash the DV proceedings but allowed them to continue subject to the wife depositing Rs. 89,00,000 (the disgorged settlement money) with the Registrar General and retaining the jewellery under restraint. Aggrieved, the husband approached the Supreme Court and also moved an application under Article 142(1) seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
The wife accepted Rs. 89 lakh and her jewellery, then reneged with malafide intent
The husband argued the Impugned Order suffered from an error of law in failing to appreciate that the parties had been separated since 21.12.2022 with no intention to resume cohabitation. Having admittedly received Rs. 75 lakh of the lump sum, Rs. 14 lakh for the car, and her entire jewellery at the First Motion, the wife refused to proceed with the Second Motion and instead filed a vexatious DV complaint solely to extract a more financially lucrative settlement — conduct amounting to a clear abuse of process liable to be nipped in the bud.
The Settlement Agreement and Affidavit of Undertaking barred future litigation
Clause 12 of the Settlement Agreement clearly stipulated that neither the wife nor her family members would initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against the husband or his family. The DV proceedings were ex facie an abuse of process in light of the binding Settlement Agreement and the Affidavit of Undertaking dated 03.07.2024, and the High Court erred in not quashing them under Section 528 of the BNSS.
The marriage has irretrievably broken down warranting Article 142 relief
With both parties having made serious allegations of cruelty and incompatibility and neither willing to resume marital obligations, the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The husband, ready and willing to comply by paying the balance Rs. 75 lakh, prayed that the Court exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and quash the DV proceedings, since loss of finality in litigation would ensue if parties are permitted to renege from mediated settlements.
The wife could not prove the alleged off-the-record promise
The claim that the husband had assured return of jewellery worth Rs. 120 crores and gold biscuits worth Rs. 50 crores was vehemently denied. No such agreement existed and there was no evidence of jewellery of such value. The wife's own WhatsApp messages dated 17.02.2025 listing items to be returned contained not even a whisper of the Rs. 120 crore jewellery or Rs. 50 crore gold biscuits, exposing the claim as a tactic to extort additional money.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Consent to a mutual-consent divorce can be withdrawn before the final decree
The wife argued that under settled principles, the consent of the parties must subsist not only at the stage of filing but must continue to exist till the passing of the final decree. Her withdrawal of consent before the Second Motion was a valid exercise of her statutory right, so the divorce by mutual consent could not be forced upon her.
The settlement was one-sided and signed on the basis of unfulfilled assurances
The wife contended the Settlement Agreement was entirely one-sided, requiring her alone to relinquish rights and transfer Rs. 2,52,38,794 by liquidating mutual funds and shares despite having no independent income. She signed believing the husband's assurance to return jewellery worth Rs. 120 crores and gold biscuits worth Rs. 50 crores, which he refused to honour, justifying her withdrawal of consent.
Continued retention of stridhan constitutes ongoing economic abuse under the DV Act
The unlawful retention of the wife's stridhan, jewellery, gold biscuits and monies amounted to continuing economic abuse as recognised under Section 3 of the DV Act. The cause of action continued to subsist, so her right to seek redressal under the DV Act remained unaffected by the cessation of cohabitation or alleged severance of matrimonial ties.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court framed three issues — whether the DV proceedings should be quashed, whether a party can resile from a mediated settlement, and whether Article 142(1) could be invoked to dissolve the marriage. On the settlement question, the Court drew on Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal, Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra, and Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel to hold that a settlement once authenticated by a mediator subsumes the original dispute and binds the parties, and that a resiling party must bear heavy costs because such deviation attacks the foundation of mediation. The only exceptions are proof of force, fraud or undue influence, or non-fulfilment of a condition by the opposite party — neither of which the wife established. The Court was unpersuaded by her explanation that the Rs. 120 crore jewellery and Rs. 50 crore gold biscuit terms were deliberately left out to evade income tax, calling the submission egregious and an affront to the legal system. On the DV complaint, the Court found no specific allegation of any act of violence; filed eight months after withdrawal of consent and only after contempt notice, it was premeditated and an afterthought. The Court distinguished Sureshta Devi, Hitesh Bhatnagar and Smruti Pahariya on the basis that the wife had not proved fraud, force or undue influence and her withdrawal rested merely on a promise outside the settlement. Finally, applying Shilpa Sailesh and Rinku Baheti, the Court took a holistic view and concluded the marriage was emotionally dead, exercising Article 142(1) to grant divorce while enforcing the balance of the settlement terms.
Though 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 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.
Para 29
Draws the crucial distinction between the statutory right to withdraw consent (which survives) and the binding effect of a concluded settlement (which cannot be unilaterally repudiated), the doctrinal heart of the judgment.
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.
Para 30
Protects the integrity and finality of court-monitored mediation by signalling that reneging on a confirmed settlement carries serious consequences.
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.
Para 33
Demonstrates the Court's refusal to countenance an argument premised on tax evasion, undermining the credibility of the wife's entire account of the off-the-record promise.
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.
Para 38
Articulates the principle that matrimonial bitterness cannot be converted into criminal prosecution, anchoring the quashing of the DV complaint.
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.
Para 41
The operative conclusion on the DV proceedings, holding that their continuation would abuse the legal process given the absence of specific allegations and the manifestly retaliatory timing.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The husband secured a decree of divorce by irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142(1) and the quashing of the DV proceedings, conditional on his completing the balance settlement payment of Rs. 70,22,871 and handing over the PPF passbook within two weeks. The wife was protected by the return of her Rs. 89,00,000 deposit with interest, while being required to execute the agreed relinquishment deeds. The Court built in a safeguard that the divorce would not take effect if the husband defaulted on his payment obligations, balancing finality with enforcement of the negotiated terms.
Directions Issued
- DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 and the proceedings initiated by the wife were quashed and the Impugned Order set aside
- The application under Article 142(1) was allowed and the marriage dissolved, subject to the terms specified
- Contempt Case (C) No. 19 of 2026 pending before the Delhi High Court and all consequential proceedings stood closed
- The husband was directed to pay the balance Rs. 70,22,871 (after deducting Rs. 4,77,129 towards the PPF account) and hand over the PPF passbook within two weeks, failing which the divorce would not come into effect
- Immediately after the transfer, the parties were to appear before the jurisdictional Registrar to execute the relinquishment deeds within four weeks; if the wife failed to appear, the Registrar was to record her absence and register the deeds in the husband's favour
- The Rs. 89,00,000 deposited by the wife before the Delhi High Court was to be returned to her with accrued interest within two weeks of her submitting bank details
- All proceedings, civil and criminal, arising out of the marriage were to stand closed and quashed, with a complete bar on future litigation between the parties and their families
Key Legal Principles Established
A party retains the statutory right to withdraw consent at any stage before a decree of divorce by mutual consent is passed, but this right cannot be used to renege on a concluded settlement agreement.
Once parties enter a settlement agreement through court-monitored mediation that fully and finally settles their disputes, neither can step back from its terms and conditions at will.
A settlement duly authenticated by the mediator and confirmed by the court subsumes the original dispute; reversing its effect by pursuing original or fresh proceedings is impermissible.
A party may resile from a mediated settlement only by proving it was procured by force, fraud or undue influence, or that the opposite party failed to fulfil a condition of the settlement.
A resiling party who has accepted benefits under the settlement must be encumbered with heavy costs, as deviation attacks the foundational basis of the mediation process.
A domestic violence complaint that contains no specific allegation of any act of violence and is filed belatedly to gain leverage in a settlement dispute can be quashed as an abuse of process.
Marital bitterness and bursts of emotion cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution; allowing such prosecution would cause harassment and abuse the process of law.
Article 142(1) may be invoked to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown after a holistic assessment establishing the marriage is emotionally dead and beyond salvation.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you sign a settlement in court-monitored mediation and accept money or property under it, you generally cannot later back out and demand more or file fresh cases.
- You can withdraw consent for a mutual-consent divorce before the final decree, but you cannot use that right to escape a settlement whose benefits you have already pocketed.
- To get out of a mediated settlement, you must prove it was signed under force, fraud or undue influence, or that the other side broke its part of the deal.
- Filing a vague domestic violence case without specific incidents, long after a settlement, can be seen by courts as harassment and dismissed.
- Never agree to keep terms out of a written settlement to hide money from the tax authorities — courts will not protect such secret side-deals and it can destroy your credibility.
- The Supreme Court can use Article 142 to grant a divorce when a marriage has completely and irretrievably broken down, even without mutual consent, while ensuring fair financial terms.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 142(1)
Constitution of India
“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.”
Relevance: The Court invoked this extraordinary power to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown — a ground not available under the Hindu Marriage Act — finding it imperative to do complete justice where statutory remedies could not fully resolve the dispute.
Statutory Provisions
Section 13-B
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
“Provides for divorce by mutual consent on a petition jointly presented by both parties, requiring a First Motion and, after a statutory interval, a Second Motion, with consent subsisting till the decree is passed.”
Relevance: The wife withdrew consent before the Second Motion. The Court recognised this statutory right but held it could not be used to resile from the concluded settlement, and instead granted divorce under Article 142(1).
Section 12
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
“Enables an aggrieved person to present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act for acts of domestic violence.”
Relevance: The wife's complaint under this provision was found to contain no specific allegation of any act of domestic violence and to be a premeditated afterthought, leading the Court to quash it as an abuse of process.
Section 3
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
“Defines "domestic violence" to include physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse, harassment, and harm to the aggrieved person.”
Relevance: The wife relied on this provision to allege continuing economic abuse through retention of stridhan, but the Court found the complaint lacked particulars establishing any act of violence.
Section 528
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
“Preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
Relevance: The husband sought quashing of the DV proceedings under this inherent power; the Supreme Court ultimately held the proceedings were an abuse of process liable to be quashed.
Related Cases & Precedents
Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal
followed(2005) 3 SCC 299
The husband performed his part of a mutual-consent compromise but the wife partly performed and did not withdraw certain cases. The Court held the wife, having received the relief she wanted, could not later resile, and quashed the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process — the foundational precedent applied here.
Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra
followed2025 SCC OnLine SC 1611
On almost identical facts where the wife resiled from a settlement before the Second Motion, a three-judge Bench granted divorce and quashed all matrimonial proceedings, holding the marriage irretrievably broken — applied directly to the present case.
Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel
followed(2022) 11 SCC 705
A three-Judge Bench held that a settlement once entered and authenticated by a mediator subsumes the original complaint, and parties cannot reverse its effect by pursuing original or subsequent complaints — cited for the binding character of mediated settlements.
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
followed(2023) 14 SCC 231
Constitution Bench holding that the power to grant divorce under Article 142(1) on irretrievable breakdown is exercisable with care, only where the Court is convinced the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation — the governing standard applied to dissolve this marriage.
Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash
distinguished(1991) 2 SCC 25
Held that mutual consent must subsist till the final decree. The wife relied on it to justify her withdrawal of consent, but the Court distinguished it because she could not prove fraud, force or undue influence and her withdrawal rested on a promise outside the settlement.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.