Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has clarified a principle in matrimonial law. While parties can withdraw consent in mutual divorce proceedings, such withdrawal is not absolute when a binding mediation settlement has already resolved all disputes.
Legal Issue
The wife’s attempt to withdraw consent and initiate fresh litigation after accepting a full and final settlement backfired. The Court strongly criticised her conduct and termed the move as an abuse of the legal process.
Case Title
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
Case Background
The parties married in 2000 and later decided to separate. In 2023, the husband filed for divorce, after which the matter was referred to mediation. A comprehensive settlement was reached between the parties.
As per the agreement, the husband agreed to pay ₹1.5 crore in two instalments, ₹14 lakh for a car, and hand over certain jewellery. The wife, in return, agreed to transfer ₹2.5 crore from their joint business account to the husband.
Following this, a mutual divorce petition was filed. The husband paid ₹75 lakh as the first instalment and ₹14 lakh for the car. The wife also transferred over ₹2.5 crore. However, before the second motion, the wife withdrew her consent and initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.
Petitioner’s Stance
The husband challenged the continuation of domestic violence proceedings and sought dissolution of marriage under Article 142. He argued that the wife had already benefited from the settlement and could not back out arbitrarily.
Court’s Ruling
The bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that although consent can generally be withdrawn before a divorce decree, this right is limited when parties have entered into a valid and court-recognised settlement.
The Court emphasised that mediation settlements, once authenticated and accepted by the Court, become binding and replace the original disputes. Allowing parties to casually withdraw from such agreements would undermine the entire mediation system.
It further held that a party can only withdraw from such settlements in exceptional cases, such as fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or non-fulfilment of obligations by the other party.
Court’s Observations
The Court strongly criticised the wife’s claim that additional unrecorded assets worth crores were promised outside the agreement. It termed such submissions as showing “sheer audacity” and disregard for the legal process.
The Court also observed that the domestic violence proceedings were an afterthought, initiated only after the husband pursued legal action for enforcement of the settlement.
Final Verdict
Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage, quashed the domestic violence proceedings, and directed the husband to complete the remaining financial obligations. The ruling reinforces that mediated settlements must be honoured and cannot be casually disregarded by either party.
