Spouse Cannot Revoke Consent for Mutual Divorce After Settlement Agreement

The Supreme Court of India, in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026), delivered a landmark judgment that significantly reshapes the legal understand

Spouse Cannot Revoke Consent for Mutual Divorce After Settlement Agreement (2026)

The Supreme Court of India, in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026), delivered a landmark judgment that significantly reshapes the legal understanding of withdrawal of consent in mutual divorce proceedings. This decision clarifies a long-debated issue in matrimonial law—whether a spouse can withdraw consent after entering into and acting upon a settlement agreement.

Traditionally, Indian law has recognized that mutual consent must continue till the final decree of divorce. However, this case introduces a crucial qualification: when consent is part of a binding settlement resolving all disputes, it cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn.

This ruling strengthens the integrity of mediation, prevents misuse of legal processes, and promotes fairness in matrimonial litigation.

Why This Judgment is Important

This case gained prominence because it addresses a practical loophole frequently exploited in matrimonial disputes.

The Supreme Court clearly held that:

• Withdrawal of consent is allowed under law

• BUT it cannot override a binding settlement agreement

The Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 and quashed the Domestic Violence proceedings, calling them an afterthought.

This judgment is now a guiding precedent for courts dealing with similar cases.

Background of the Case

The case of Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026) arose out of a matrimonial dispute between a couple who had been married for over two decades. The parties were married in the year 2000 and had lived together for a substantial period before differences emerged between them. Due to irreconcilable disputes, the husband initiated divorce proceedings in 2023 before the Family Court.

Recognizing the possibility of an amicable resolution, the Family Court referred the matter to mediation. During the mediation process, both parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement with the intention of resolving all their disputes, including financial claims and marital issues. As per the terms of the settlement, the husband agreed to pay a total sum of ₹1.5 crore to the wife in two instalments, along with an additional ₹14 lakh for the purchase of a car. He also agreed to hand over certain jewellery items. On the other hand, the wife agreed to transfer ₹2.5 crore from their joint business account to the husband by executing a gift deed.

The settlement was not merely theoretical; it was partially executed by both parties. The husband paid ₹75 lakh as the first instalment and also paid ₹14 lakh for the car. Simultaneously, the wife transferred ₹2.52 crore to the husband in accordance with the agreement. Following this, both parties filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

However, before the second motion could be completed, the wife withdrew her consent for divorce. She further initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the husband and his mother. This sudden withdrawal, despite the execution of the settlement, led to a complex legal dispute and ultimately brought the matter before the Supreme Court.

Core Legal Issue

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026) was both simple and important:

Can a spouse withdraw consent for mutual divorce after entering into and acting upon a comprehensive settlement agreement?

Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, divorce by mutual consent requires that both parties continue to agree until the final decree is passed. Traditionally, courts have held that either party is free to withdraw consent at any stage before the second motion is completed.

However, the situation in this case was different. Here, the consent for divorce was not given casually—it was part of a detailed mediation settlement where both parties had resolved all their disputes, especially financial matters. Not only was the agreement signed, but both parties had also partially performed their obligations under it.

This created a legal conflict between two principles:

• The statutory right to withdraw consent in a mutual divorce

• The binding nature of a settlement agreement reached through mediation

The Supreme Court had to decide which of these should prevail in such circumstances. In other words, the key question was whether a party can rely on their legal right to withdraw consent even after benefiting from a settlement, or whether they should be held accountable to the agreement they voluntarily entered into.

This issue had wider implications, as it directly affected the credibility of mediation, the finality of settlements, and the fairness of matrimonial proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Observations

In Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026), the Supreme Court took a very practical and balanced approach while deciding the issue. The Court first acknowledged the general rule under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act—that either spouse is free to withdraw consent for mutual divorce at any time before the final decree is granted.

However, the Court made it clear that this right cannot be used unfairly. It observed that when both parties have already entered into a detailed settlement agreement through mediation, and have even started acting on it, then one party cannot simply back out without any valid reason. Once such a settlement is accepted by the Court, it becomes the main framework governing the relationship between the parties, and not just a temporary understanding.

The Court further explained that a person can withdraw from a settlement only in limited situations—such as if the agreement was made under pressure, fraud, or undue influence, or if the other party has not fulfilled their part of the deal. But in normal circumstances, walking away from a settlement after taking its benefits would be unfair and unacceptable.

The judges also expressed strong disapproval of the wife’s actions in this case. They noted that the Domestic Violence complaint was filed after many years of marriage and only after disputes arose regarding the settlement. According to the Court, this appeared to be a deliberate attempt to continue litigation rather than a genuine grievance.

In the end, to avoid further delay and ensure fairness, the Supreme Court used its powers under Article 142 and granted divorce, bringing a final end to the dispute.

Legal Framework: Mutual Consent Divorce

Divorce by mutual consent in India is governed by Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which introduced the concept of “no-fault divorce.” Unlike contested divorce, where one party has to prove fault (such as cruelty or desertion), mutual consent divorce is based on the idea that both spouses have jointly decided to end the marriage.

Concept of Mutual Consent Divorce

The objective behind this provision is to allow couples to separate peacefully when they are no longer able to live together. It avoids unnecessary litigation and emotional stress by enabling an amicable resolution.

For a valid mutual consent divorce, certain basic conditions must be fulfilled:

• Both parties must agree to dissolve the marriage

• They must have been living separately for at least one year

• They should have mutually decided that they cannot live together anymore

Section 13B(1): First Motion

The process begins with the filing of a joint petition before the District Court. This is known as the first motion.

In this stage:

• Both spouses submit a joint application

• They state that they have been living separately

• They confirm that they have mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage

The Court examines whether the conditions are satisfied and records the statements of both parties.

Section 13B(2): Second Motion

After the first motion, the law provides a cooling-off period of six months. This period is meant to give the parties time to reconsider their decision and explore the possibility of reconciliation.

The second motion:

• Can be filed after 6 months but within 18 months from the first motion

• Requires both parties to again appear before the Court

• The Court verifies whether consent still exists

If the Court is satisfied that:

• The marriage was validly solemnized

• The statements made are true

• The parties still wish to separate

👉 It passes a decree of divorce, legally dissolving the marriage.

Withdrawal of Consent

A key feature of mutual consent divorce is that consent must continue till the final decree.

This means:

• Either party can withdraw consent any time before the second motion is completed

• If consent is withdrawn, the Court cannot grant divorce under Section 13B

This principle has been affirmed in several judgments, making continuous consent a core requirement.

Cooling-Off Period: Mandatory or Not?

Although Section 13B provides a six-month waiting period, the Supreme Court has clarified that this period is not mandatory in all cases.

In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017), the Court held that:

• The cooling-off period can be waived if:

  • Parties have already been separated for a long time

  • All disputes have been settled

  • There is no chance of reconciliation

Later, in Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), the Court further held that:

• The Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 to grant divorce directly

• The waiting period should not prolong the suffering of the parties

Purpose of the Legal Framework

The structure of Section 13B serves multiple purposes:

• It ensures that the decision to divorce is well thought out

• It provides an opportunity for reconciliation

• It prevents hasty or impulsive separations

• It balances individual freedom with social responsibility

In Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026), this legal framework became central to the dispute. While the law allows withdrawal of consent, the Supreme Court had to examine whether this right could still be exercised after a binding settlement agreement had already been executed.

Thus, the case highlights the interaction between statutory provisions and equitable principles, ultimately leading to a more refined understanding of mutual consent divorce in India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026) is a landmark decision that brings clarity and balance to matrimonial law.

While the law allows withdrawal of consent, it cannot be used as a tool to gain unfair advantage after benefiting from a settlement.

This judgment ensures that:

• Agreements are respected

• Justice is not delayed

• Legal processes are not misused

This decision represents a progressive and practical approach toward resolving matrimonial disputes in India.