In a landmark ruling that strengthens the sanctity of mediated settlements in matrimonial matters, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the circumstances in which a party can (or cannot) back out of a comprehensive settlement agreement reached through court-annexed mediation. The judgment delivered by Justice Vijay Bishnoi in Criminal Appeal No. 1924 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1878 of 2026) Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi directly addresses the interplay between:
- Mediated settlement agreements under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act)
- The Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (quashing) and Article 142 of the Constitution
Factual Matrix
The parties were married in 2000 and have two adult children. After matrimonial discord, the husband filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and adultery in 2023. The Family Court referred the matter to mediation. On 16.05.2024, the parties executed a detailed Settlement Agreement before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Saket Courts. Salient terms included:
- Mutual consent divorce under Section 13-B HMA
- Husband to pay ₹1.5 crore in two instalments + ₹14 lakh for a car + specified jewellery
- Wife to transfer properties, shares, policies, and ₹2.52 crore standing in her name to the husband
- Both parties to refrain from initiating any civil or criminal proceedings against each other or their families (Clause 12)
The husband fully complied with the first motion obligations: paid ₹75 lakh + ₹14 lakh and handed over jewellery. The wife transferred ₹2.52 crore. The Family Court recorded the first motion on 14.08.2024.
Thereafter, the wife withdrew consent for the second motion and filed a DV complaint (No. 3186/2025) alleging domestic violence and economic abuse, claiming additional jewellery and gold biscuits worth ₹170 crore (not mentioned in the Settlement Agreement).
High Court’s Interim Order
In the husband’s quashing petition (Crl. M.C. No. 116/2026), the Delhi High Court passed an interim order directing the wife to deposit the ₹89 lakh received by her as “disgorgement” and restrained her from alienating the jewellery, but allowed the DV proceedings to continue.
Supreme Court’s Key Holdings
The Supreme Court examined three core issues:
1. Can a party resile from a mediated settlement agreement? The Court held that once parties enter into a court-annexed mediated settlement that is recorded and acted upon (first motion passed, substantial payments made), unilateral withdrawal is not an absolute right when it amounts to abuse of process.
Relying on Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal (2005) 3 SCC 299 and Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1611), the Court observed that partial performance by one party and acceptance of benefits by the other creates an estoppel-like situation. The wife could not, after receiving ₹89 lakh and jewellery, turn around and file fresh DV proceedings to extract a better settlement.
2. Binding nature of Clause 12 (no-further-proceedings clause) The Court emphasised that a comprehensive settlement that puts “an end to all disputes” between the parties and their families is not a mere contract but carries the imprimatur of judicial mediation. Resiling from such a clause after reaping benefits constitutes abuse of the process of law.
3. Article 142 powers and irretrievable breakdown Citing Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1191) and the three-judge bench decision in Anurag Vijaykumar Goel, the Supreme Court reiterated that in cases of long separation (here since 2022-23), irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and a failed mediated settlement, the Court can invoke Article 142 to grant divorce and quash all collateral proceedings to do complete justice.
4. When can a party validly resile? The judgment carves out a clear exception: a party may resile only if it demonstrates that the settlement was obtained by force, fraud, undue influence, or if the opposite party has failed to fulfil its obligations under the agreement. Vague oral assurances (like the alleged ₹170 crore jewellery) not forming part of the written mediated settlement do not qualify.
Ratio Decidendi
- A mediated settlement agreement recorded by the Family Court and acted upon by both parties is binding.
- Filing fresh proceedings (especially under the DV Act) after receiving substantial benefits under the settlement amounts to abuse of process and is liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.
- The Court can, in appropriate cases, exercise Article 142 to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and close all related proceedings, subject to compliance with the settlement terms.
- Heavy costs may be imposed on the party resiling from a mediated settlement without justification.
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 