Supreme Court Quashes DV Act Proceedings Over Wife’s "Afterthought" Allegation Of ₹170 Crore Worth Unreturned Gold; Dissolves Marriage
The Court determined that the marriage had reached a stage of irretrievable breakdown, rendering any further legal proceedings futile.
Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 noting the wife’s attempt to stall a mutual consent divorce by alleging the non-return of gold and jewellery worth ₹170 crore, an allegation never mentioned during the mediation. The Bench was of the opinion that it was a premeditated attempt to expand the dispute beyond the agreed terms in the settlement agreement and prolong litigation.
By invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court determined that the marriage had reached a stage of irretrievable breakdown, rendering any further legal proceedings futile. The Bench noted that the wife had already received nearly ₹90 lakh in cash and the transfer of properties and shares valued at over ₹2.5 crore before she chose to reprobate the agreement.
Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed, “It is evident from the petition filed by the Respondent Wife that apart from the Appellant-Husband’s non-compliance with the condition of giving ₹120 Crores and gold biscuits worth ₹50 Crores, all the other allegations seems to be trivial disagreements exaggerated, solely to justify the institution of the complaint under the DV Act”.
“…The 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, as it was evidently for the first time in a long span of about 23 years of their sustained marriage, that such a petition alleging domestic violence has been filed by the Respondent-Wife…”, it noted further.
Advocate Prabhjit Jauhar appeared for the appellant and Advocate Prashant Mendiratta appeared for the respondent.
The parties, in the matter were married in 2000 and had two adult children, but following a separation in 2022, the husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The dispute was referred to the Court-Annexed Mediation Centre, where a Settlement Agreement was signed on May 16, 2024.
Under the agreement, the husband agreed to pay ₹1.5 crore and return specific items, while the wife agreed to transfer certain shares and property interests back to the husband. After both parties fulfilled significant portions of their obligations and completed the First Motion for divorce, the wife refused to sign the Second Motion.
She instead filed a DV complaint, claiming the husband had withheld gold biscuits and jewellery worth ₹170 crore. Following the wife’s refusal to conclude the divorce, the husband moved the High Court to quash the DV proceedings.
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order allowing the DV proceedings to continue, provided the wife deposited the ₹89 lakh she had already received from the husband. The husband challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that the wife could not retain the settlement benefits while simultaneously pursuing criminal charges based on facts suppressed during the mediation process.
Now, the Court found the wife’s claim regarding ₹170 crore worth of gold to be inherently improbable, noting that such a massive claim would have certainly been recorded in the detailed written agreement had it been legitimate.
“…the Respondent-Wife could not prove any fraud, force, or undue influence and her withdrawal of consent is 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 and thus, cannot benefit her to initiate another proceeding”, the Bench noted.
“…we are convinced that the sacrosanct thread tying the parties in this martial relationship has been snapped for long now and we perceive no possibility that they could be united (for good) in a matrimonial relationship”, accordingly, the Bench held.
The Court held that allowing the Domestic Violence (DV) proceedings to continue under such circumstances would be a travesty of justice, as the allegations appeared to be a strategic maneuver to extract further financial gains rather than a genuine grievance.
“On going through the materials on record, it is evident 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, we see no point in continuation of any sorts of litigation in between the parties arising solely out of the matrimonial discord”, it noted further.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and issued the following directions: The marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India; the husband is directed to pay the balance settlement amount of ₹75 lakh within two weeks: the ₹89 lakh deposited by the wife before the Delhi High Court shall be returned to her with accrued interest; all pending civil and criminal proceedings, including the DV complaint, are quashed; a complete bar is placed on any future proceedings by either party regarding their marriage.
Cause Title: X v. Y [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 360]
Appearances:
Appellant: Prabhjit Jauhar, Sehaj Kataria, Rosemary Raju, Anupama Kaul, Chahat Raghav, Shreya Narayan, Shreyangana Bag, Tanay Kalia, Misha Thakur, S. S. Jauhar, AOR, Advocates.
Respondent: Prashant Mendiratta, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Advocates.