Matrimonial settlement agreements are binding; parties cannot resile and initiate fresh litigation after accepting benefits.

The parties married in 2000 and separated in 2022-23

Following a divorce petition filed by the Appellant-Husband, the matter was referred to mediation where a Settlement Agreement was signed on 16.05.2024

Per the terms, the Husband paid ₹89,00,000/- (alimony installment and car fund) and returned jewellery, while the Respondent-Wife transferred ₹2,52,38,794/- to validate business accounts

The First Motion for mutual divorce was allowed on 14.08.2024

Subsequently, the Wife resiled from the Second Motion and filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("DV Act"), alleging the Husband failed to return additional jewellery worth ₹120 crores and gold biscuits worth ₹50 crores promised orally

The Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing the DV proceedings to continue subject to the Wife depositing the received ₹89,00,000/-

The Husband challenged this order and sought a decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution

The Court applied the principle that a settlement agreement authenticated by a mediator subsumes original complaints, and parties cannot reverse its effects by pursuing subsequent litigation, as held in Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel

It relied on Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal and Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar to establish that criminal proceedings may be quashed if a party accepts settlement benefits but refuses to fulfill reciprocal obligations

Furthermore, the Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, guided by Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, which permits the dissolution of marriage on the ground of "irretrievable breakdown" if the relationship is "emotionally dead and beyond salvation"

The Court observed that the Wife had accepted substantial benefits (money and jewellery) under the Settlement Agreement and only resiled when the Second Motion was due

Her allegations regarding oral promises of ₹170 crores in jewellery and gold were deemed "audacious" and "egregious," especially as they were absent from the written agreement and subsequent WhatsApp correspondences

The Court found the DV complaint lacked specific allegations of violence and was a "premeditated afterthought" to harass the Husband

Legally, while consent for mutual divorce can be withdrawn, a party cannot resile from a full and final settlement agreement unless it was procured by fraud or force, which was not proven here

Regarding the marriage, the Court noted the long separation, the majority of the children, and the intensity of litigation, concluding that the "sacrosanct thread" of the relationship was snapped, warranting a decree of divorce to achieve complete justice

It held that the Wife’s conduct was an abuse of the process of law

The Court directed: (a) the Husband to pay the balance alimony of ₹70,22,871/- and hand over the PPF passbook within two weeks; (b) the Wife to execute all pending relinquishment deeds for properties and shares within four weeks; (c) the High Court to refund the ₹89,00,000/- deposited by the Wife; and (d) all pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties and their families to be quashed with a permanent bar on future litigation related to the marriage