Summary
After a court-referred mediated settlement for divorce by mutual consent had been largely performed, the wife withdrew consent before the second motion and filed a DV Act complaint against the husband and his mother. The Court held that a party may resile from a mediated settlement only for fraud, force or undue influence or the other side's non-performance, and quashed the DV complaint as an afterthought with no specific allegations. It dissolved the marriage under Article 142(1) on the settlement terms.
Issues
- Whether the wife's complaint under the DV Act against the husband and his mother should be quashed.
- Whether, and in what circumstances, a party may resile from a settlement reached in court-referred mediation.
- Whether the Court should grant divorce under Article 142(1) for irretrievable breakdown of marriage on the husband's application, and on what terms.
Provisions considered
- Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005The wife's application to the Magistrate under Section 12 was quashed, as it contained no specific allegation of any act of domestic violence by the husband or his mother and was a premeditated afterthought. (¶¶ 7, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
- Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955The parties' joint petition for divorce by mutual consent had its first motion allowed, but the wife withdrew consent before the second motion. Although consent may be withdrawn before the decree, the wife could not use that right to avoid a mediated settlement without proving fraud, force or undue influence. (¶¶ 4.1, 24, 29, 36, 50)
- Article 142(1), Constitution of IndiaQuoted. Used, following Shilpa Sailesh, to dissolve the marriage for complete and irretrievable breakdown and to close all matrimonial proceedings on terms drawn from the settlement. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45, 49, 52, 53, 55)
- Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The husband's petition to quash the DV complaint was filed in the High Court under this provision. The High Court only allowed the complaint to continue on the wife depositing the sums received; the Supreme Court set that order aside and quashed the complaint as an abuse of process. (¶¶ 9, 15, 41, 55)
Held
- Although a party may withdraw consent at any stage before a decree of divorce by mutual consent, a party who has entered into a settlement for full and final resolution of all disputes cannot step back from its terms. A party resiling from a settlement authenticated by a mediator and accepted by the court should be burdened with heavy costs, since such deviation attacks the foundation of mediation (Gimpex v. Manoj Goel relied on). (¶¶ 29, 30)
- A party may resile from a mediated settlement only by proving that it was procured by force, fraud or undue influence, or because the other party did not fulfil a condition of the settlement. (¶ 31)
- The wife's ground for withdrawing, an alleged oral assurance by the husband of further jewellery and gold outside the written settlement, was rejected. She signed the settlement as an educated person advised by counsel. She first raised the claim in the DV complaint, and it was absent from her own earlier list of items to be returned. Her explanation that the terms were left out to avoid tax authorities was deplored. Sureshta Devi, Hitesh Bhatnagar and Smruti Pahariya were distinguished because no fraud, force or undue influence was shown and this settlement was reached in court-referred mediation. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- A domestic violence complaint that merely names the husband or family members without specific allegations of their active involvement in any act of violence should be nipped in the bud. This complaint described no incident of violence, exaggerated trivial disagreements, came after years of separation following a long marriage and after the husband's contempt petition, and was an afterthought; its continuance would abuse the process of law. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
- Divorce under Article 142(1) is a discretion exercised only when the Court is satisfied on the facts that the marriage has completely and irretrievably broken down (Shilpa Sailesh, Rinku Baheti, Trisha Singh). Here the parties had lived apart since 2022-23, the children were adults, a fault-based petition had been withdrawn under the settlement, and the wife resiled and brought DV proceedings. The marriage had irretrievably broken down and was dissolved on terms drawn from the settlement. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 quashed; marriage dissolved under Article 142(1), conditional on the husband paying the balance settlement amount and handing over the PPF passbook within two weeks; wife to execute the agreed relinquishment deeds before the Registrar, failing which the Registrar registers them; her High Court deposit returned with interest; husband's contempt case closed; all matrimonial proceedings between the parties and their families closed and future proceedings barred.