LexDHANANJAY RATHI versus RUCHIKA RATHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 175 : 2026 INSC 360 Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (Criminal Appeal No. 1924 of 2026) 13 April 2026 [Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife under the DV Act should be quashed; whether any party can back out from the Settlement Agreement arrived at in the mediation proceedings; and whether this Court, can exercise its powers u/Art.142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce to the parties herein on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, upon an application filed by the appellant-husband; if yes, then on what terms and conditions. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Divorce petition – Parties, appellant-husband and respondent-wife entered into settlement agreement – Petition for divorce by mutual consent filed – First Motion of the petition allowed, in view of the settlement arrived at, and in compliance thereof, the appellant paid ₹75,00,000/- as first installment of the final settlement amount along with ₹14,00,000/- for purchase of the car and also returned the jewellery items as stated therein to the respondent, and the respondent executed a gift deed/forfeited her claim – However, subsequently, the respondent withdrew the consent for the mutual divorce, and later filed complaint u/s.12 of DV Act against the appellant and his mother – Appellant then filed petition for quashing of complaint – High Court directed continuance of DV proceedings – Correctness: Held: 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 compromise deed or settlement agreement has * Author 176 [2026] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 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 – However, a party can resile from the Settlement Agreement arrived in the mediation proceedings, if it successfully demonstrates that the said Settlement Agreement was procured by force, fraud or undue influence, or on account of non-fulfillment of any of the conditions by the opposite party as set out in the Settlement Agreement – On facts, withdrawal of consent before the Second Motion, was merely on the ground of non-adherence to the promise made by the appellant-husband which was not even the part of the Settlement Agreement – Also no plausible explanation as to why the respondent-wife waited for eight long months from the date of the Second Motion Petition before initiating the DV proceedings – Complaint filed by the respondent-wife under the DV Act depicts that there are no specific allegations regarding any sort of domestic violence that could emanate from the pleadings – Respondent-wife failed to mention any event describing any sort of violence carried out either by the appellant-Husband or his mother – Proceedings under the DV Act appear to be premeditated, one filed in order to sustain some sort of litigation between the parties after she had resiled from the Settlement Agreement – Thus, the proceedings under the DV Act as initiated by the respondent liable to be quashed, the continuance of which would be an abuse of the process of law – It is evident from records that there has been a complete and irretrievable breakdown of the matrimonial relationship between the parties – In such a case, when there is no scope of parties peacefully co-existing together, no point in continuation of any sorts of litigation in between the parties arising solely out of the matrimonial discord – Thus, a fit case for exercise of powers u/Art.142(1) to grant a divorce as there had been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage – Marriage between the party dissolved subject to the terms specified – DV complaint quashed and impugned order set aside. [Paras 29, 31, 37, 40, 41, 52, 53, 55] Case Law Cited Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2023) 14 SCC 231 – followed. Smt Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash [1991] 1 SCR 274 : (1991) 2 SCC 25; Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar [2011] 6 SCR 118 : [2026] 5 S.C.R. 177 Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2011) 5 SCC 234; Smruti Pahariya v. Sanjay Pahariya [2009] 8 SCR 631 : (2009) 12 SCC 338 – held inapplicable. Ruchi A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.