Mutual Divorce Consent Cannot Be Withdrawn After Settlement: Supreme Court

In Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, the Supreme Court has clarified that a spouse cannot withdraw consent for mutual divorce after agreeing to a full and final settlement of disputes through mediation. The ruling reinforces the binding nature of court-approved settlements in matrimonial matters.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the parties, married in 2000, opted for mediation during divorce proceedings. In 2023, they entered into a detailed settlement agreement covering financial arrangements, asset transfers, and a mutual decision to dissolve the marriage.

As part of the agreement, the husband paid ₹75 lakhs as the first instalment and ₹14 lakhs towards a car. The wife, in turn, transferred ₹2.52 crore from a joint business account. However, before the second motion for divorce, the wife withdrew her consent and initiated domestic violence proceedings.

The husband challenged this before the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court allowed the domestic violence case to continue. He also sought dissolution of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing non-compliance with the settlement terms.

The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between statutory rights and contractual obligations arising from settlements. It acknowledged that under law, a party can withdraw consent for mutual divorce before the final decree. However, it emphasised that this right cannot be exercised in disregard of a binding settlement.

“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.”

The Court highlighted the importance of mediation in resolving disputes. It noted that once a settlement is authenticated by a mediator and confirmed by the Court, it replaces the original dispute and becomes enforceable. Any unjustified deviation, it said, undermines the entire mediation process.

“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.”

The wife’s claim that additional unrecorded terms involving jewellery and gold worth crores existed was strongly criticised by the Court. It termed the submission as shocking and indicative of disregard for the legal process.

“We are appalled at the sheer audacity of such a submission being advanced before a court of law and deplore the evident disregard exhibited towards the legal system.”

The Court further observed that the domestic violence proceedings appeared to be an afterthought, filed only after the husband initiated contempt proceedings. It noted that no such allegations were raised during the 23 years of marriage.

Considering that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the Supreme Court dissolved it under Article 142. It also quashed the domestic violence case and directed the husband to complete the remaining financial obligations.