This appeal arises from a matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted in a settlement arrived at during mediation. However, the respondent-wife resiled from the same, withdrew her consent for the mutual divorce at the time of second motion and instituted proceedings under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”). The husband-petitioner filed a quashing petition. The high court in the quashing petition passed an interim order issuing notice, and agreed to continue the D.V. proceedings directing the respondent-wife to deposit a certain amount and retain the jewellery received by her in terms of the settlement agreement. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant-husband filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and an application seeking decree of divorce under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.

The following issues arose for consideration – (1) Whether proceedings under the DV Act should be quashed? (2) Whether any party can back out from a settlement arrived at in mediation proceedings? If yes, in what situation? (3) Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142(1) to grant a decree of divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and if yes, on what terms and conditions?

A 2-Judges bench of the Supreme Court held on Issues (1) and (2) –

“30. 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. Any deviation from the terms of the settlement arrived in mediation and later confirmed by the Court should be dealt with strictly as such deviation harbors an attack to the foundational basis of the entire process of mediation.

…

31. The exception to the above rule is that a party can resile from the Settlement Agreement arrived in the mediation proceedings is, if it successfully demonstrates that the said Settlement Agreement was procured by force, fraud or undue influence. The party can also resile from the Settlement Agreement on account of non-fulfillment of any of the conditions by the opposite party as set out in the Settlement Agreement.”

and observed that they were not impressed by the reasons given by the respondent-wife for resiling out of the settlement agreement, there were no specific allegations regarding any sort of domestic violence that could emanate from the pleadings and thus quashed the proceedings under the DV Act holding that “the continuance of which would be an abuse of the process of law”.

On Issue (3) after referring to a catena of judgments and observing that the jurisprudence pertaining to the grant of divorce under Article 142(1) on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage has been developed with caution through various judgments, the Bench held –

“49. A perusal of the dicta laid down by this Court in the above mentioned judgments and several others holding authority on the said law point makes it crystal clear that the Court while exercising its power under Article 142(1) for grant of divorce has to first conclude that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”

and concluded on the basis of materials and conduct of the parties that this was a fit case for exercise of powers under Article 142(1) to grant a divorce as there had been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Bench further passed directions.