The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling affirming that filing domestic violence proceedings after voluntarily accepting benefits under a mediated settlement constitutes an abuse of process, and that where marriage has irretrievably broken down, Article 142 empowers the Court to dissolve it outright. This judgment reinforces the sanctity of mediated agreements and curbs litigation tactics aimed at extracting additional financial concessions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Appellant-Husband and Respondent-Wife were married on 19.02.2000 and had two children - a daughter born on 06.06.2003 and a son born on 01.01.2006. By 2022-23, the couple began living separately due to irreconcilable differences. On 30.01.2023, the Appellant filed a divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging adultery and cruelty. The Family Court referred the matter to mediation.
Key Facts
On 16.05.2024, the parties entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, under the supervision of a court-appointed mediator.
The Settlement Agreement provided for:
Mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act
Payment of ₹1,50,00,000 as full and final settlement, in two installments: ₹75,00,000 at First Motion and ₹70,22,871 at Second Motion
Payment of ₹14,00,000 for purchase of a car
Transfer of ₹2,52,38,794 from the Respondent’s mutual funds and shares to the Appellant
Handover of specific jewellery items listed in APPENDIX A to P
Execution of gift deeds for properties in Greater Noida (Flat E-2002, Flat 02/1704, Flat D2/1705)
Handover of a jewellery account maintained for their daughter
Clause 12: Both parties agreed to extinguish all civil and criminal disputes and refrain from instituting any future proceedings against each other or their families
On 04.07.2024, the Appellant withdrew his fault-based divorce petition (H.M.A. No. 275/2023)
On 03.07.2024, both parties filed a joint affidavit of undertaking to comply with the Settlement Agreement
On 04.07.2024, a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent (H.M.A. No. 1185/2024) was filed
On 14.08.2024, the Family Court allowed the First Motion under Section 13B(1)
The Appellant paid the first installment, amount for the car, and returned all jewellery listed in APPENDIX A to P
The Respondent refused to sign the Second Motion Petition, which was due by 20.02.2025
On 17.02.2025, the Respondent sent WhatsApp messages listing items she wanted returned - none mentioned jewellery worth ₹120 crores or gold biscuits worth ₹50 crores
On 21.02.2025, the Appellant’s counsel sent an email stating all unspecified obligations would be fulfilled by 02.03.2025
On 16.10.2025, the Respondent filed DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence
On 13.11.2025, summons were issued against the Appellant and his mother
On 07.01.2026, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order in Crl. M.C. No. 116/2026 directing the Respondent to deposit ₹89,00,000 with the Registrar General and continue DV proceedings
Procedural History
30.01.2023: Appellant files divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) & 13(1)(ia) of HMA (H.M.A. No. 275/2023)
13.07.2023: Family Court refers matter to mediation
16.05.2024: Settlement Agreement executed at Delhi Mediation Centre
04.07.2024: Appellant withdraws H.M.A. No. 275/2023
03.07.2024: Joint affidavit of undertaking filed
04.07.2024: Joint petition for mutual divorce filed (H.M.A. No. 1185/2024)
14.08.2024: Family Court allows First Motion under Section 13B(1)
20.02.2025: Deadline for Second Motion passes without filing
16.10.2025: DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 filed by Respondent
13.11.2025: Summons issued by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket
07.01.2026: Delhi High Court issues interim order in Crl. M.C. No. 116/2026
06.02.2026: Supreme Court issues notice and stays DV proceedings
13.04.2026: Supreme Court delivers judgment
The Parties' Positions
Appellant-Husband: Argued that the Respondent had fully accepted the benefits of the Settlement Agreement - including ₹89,00,000 and jewellery - and then filed a frivolous DV complaint solely to extort further money. He contended this was an abuse of process under Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal and Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra. He submitted that the marriage was irretrievably broken and sought dissolution under Article 142.
Respondent-Wife: Claimed the Appellant had orally promised to return jewellery worth ₹120 crores and gold biscuits worth ₹50 crores, which were excluded from the Settlement Agreement to avoid tax scrutiny. She alleged that the Appellant’s refusal to deliver these items after the First Motion justified her withdrawal of consent and filing of the DV complaint. She relied on Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash to assert that mutual consent must persist until the final decree.
Relief Sought
The Appellant sought:
Quashing of DV Complaint No. 3186/2025
Dissolution of marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution
Closure of all pending civil and criminal proceedings
Dismissal of the High Court’s interim order
The Respondent sought continuation of DV proceedings and preservation of her right to claim stridhan.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, may be quashed when initiated after a party has accepted substantial benefits under a mediated settlement and then breached its terms? (2) Whether the Supreme Court may dissolve a marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even in the absence of a statutory ground, when both parties have ceased cohabitation and no reconciliation is possible?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Appellant’s counsel relied on Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal (2005) 3 SCC 299 and Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1611 to argue that a party who accepts benefits under a mediated settlement cannot later initiate criminal proceedings to extract further concessions. He emphasized that Clause 12 of the Settlement Agreement explicitly barred future litigation, and the Respondent’s conduct was a clear abuse of process. He cited Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 705 to assert that settlement agreements subsume prior disputes. He further relied on Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1191 and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231 to argue that the marriage had irretrievably broken down after four years of separation, mutual hostility, and failed mediation, warranting dissolution under Article 142.
For the Respondent
The Respondent’s counsel contended that the Settlement Agreement was incomplete and that the Appellant’s oral assurances regarding ₹120 crores in jewellery and ₹50 crores in gold biscuits constituted a binding condition precedent to signing the Second Motion. She argued that the email dated 21.02.2025 confirmed the existence of unrecorded obligations. She relied on Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash (1991) 2 SCC 25 to assert that mutual consent must endure until the final decree, and that withdrawal of consent is a statutory right under Section 13B(2). She further argued that economic deprivation of stridhan constitutes continuing domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act, and that the complaint was not frivolous but a legitimate assertion of rights.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous analysis of the Settlement Agreement, the conduct of the parties, and the jurisprudence on mediated settlements and irretrievable breakdown. It held that the Respondent’s actions were not merely a withdrawal of consent but a deliberate abuse of process.
"It is difficult to comprehend as to why in the Settlement Agreement the condition for return of jewelleries and gold biscuits have not been mentioned. It is an admitted position that the Respondent-Wife had signed the Settlement Agreement and we are not sure as to why she, being a mature and educated woman assisted by her advocate, did not press for the inclusion of these conditions in the Settlement Agreement."
The Court rejected the Respondent’s claim that tax evasion was the reason for excluding the jewellery terms, calling it "highly egregious" and an affront to the legal system. It noted that the WhatsApp messages dated 17.02.2025, which listed items the Respondent sought, contained no reference to the alleged ₹120 crore jewellery or ₹50 crore gold biscuits - indicating these claims were fabricated after the fact.
The Court distinguished Smt. Sureshta Devi by emphasizing that while mutual consent is required for divorce by mutual consent, it does not permit a party to exploit the process by accepting benefits and then initiating criminal proceedings. The Court held that the Respondent’s conduct was not a legitimate exercise of statutory rights but a tactical maneuver to circumvent the finality of the Settlement Agreement.
Regarding the DV complaint, the Court observed that it contained no specific allegations of violence, only vague references to the Appellant and his mother. It held that such complaints, filed after a prolonged period of separation and only after the Appellant initiated contempt proceedings, were premeditated and designed to harass.
"The proceedings initiated under the DV Act were merely an afterthought, as they were filed after notice was issued in the contempt petition filed by the Appellant-Husband."
On Article 142, the Court reaffirmed the principles in Shilpa Sailesh and Trisha Singh, holding that the marriage had been irretrievably broken for over four years, with no cohabitation, no reconciliation attempts, and both parties having moved on. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Article 142 is to do complete justice, not to enforce fault-based divorce but to end a dead relationship.
The Court also noted that the children were adults, the financial terms were largely fulfilled, and the Appellant was willing to pay the remaining ₹70,22,871 minus the PPF amount. The Court concluded that continuing litigation would only perpetuate suffering and that dissolution of marriage was the only just outcome.
The Verdict
The Appellant succeeded on all counts. The Supreme Court quashed DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 and set aside the Delhi High Court’s interim order dated 07.01.2026. The marriage between the parties was dissolved under Article 142(1) of the Constitution. The Appellant-Husband shall pay the remaining ₹65,45,742 (₹70,22,871 minus ₹4,77,129 for PPF) and hand over the PPF passbook within two weeks. If he fails, the divorce shall not take effect. The parties shall execute all relinquishment deeds within four weeks; if the Respondent fails to appear, the deeds shall be registered in the Appellant’s favour. The ₹89,00,000 deposited with the High Court shall be returned to the Respondent with accrued interest within two weeks of submission of bank details. All civil and criminal proceedings between the parties and their families are permanently closed, and no future litigation on any matter arising from the marriage is permitted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Finality Overrides Post-Settlement Litigation
Practitioners must now argue that accepting substantial benefits under a mediated settlement bars subsequent criminal complaints, especially under the DV Act
Courts will scrutinize the timing and content of post-settlement allegations - delayed claims lacking documentary support will be deemed fabricated
Any party seeking to renege on a mediated settlement must prove fraud, coercion, or material breach by the other party - not mere unfulfilled oral assurances
Article 142 as a Tool for Irretrievable Breakdown
The Court has affirmed that irretrievable breakdown, even without statutory grounds, is a valid basis for dissolution under Article 142
Four years of separation, failed mediation, mutual hostility, and adult children are sufficient indicia of breakdown
Courts may now proactively dissolve marriages where litigation has become a tool of harassment rather than redressal
Lawyers should prepare affidavits detailing separation duration, failed reconciliation attempts, and financial settlements to support Article 142 applications
DV Act Cannot Be Weaponized Against Settlement Compliance
DV complaints filed solely to extract financial concessions after settlement will be quashed as abuse of process
Vague allegations without specific incidents of violence will not sustain proceedings
The Court has effectively created a new threshold: a DV complaint must be independent of settlement disputes and not a retaliatory tactic
Practitioners should advise clients to avoid filing DV complaints if they have accepted settlement benefits, unless they can prove ongoing, independent abuse
