Highly Egregious: SC, On Wife’s Rs 120 Cr Jewellery, Rs 50 Cr Gold Out-Of-Court Settlement Claim
Supreme Court quashes wife's extravagant claims of Rs 120 crore jewellery and Rs 50 crore gold, grants divorce citing irretrievable marriage breakdown, reports Sumit Saxena.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : April 14, 2026 at 4:13 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court deplored a wife’s claim that her husband promised her jewellery worth Rs 120 crore and gold biscuits worth Rs 50 crore, as an out-of-court settlement agreement to evade his wealth tax liability, calling the claim “highly egregious”, and an audacious submission before a court of law.
The Apex Court observed that while a spouse may withdraw consent for divorce by mutual agreement, such withdrawal is impermissible once both parties have settled all disputes and agreed to dissolve the marriage.
A bench comprising justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, made these observations while dissolving the marriage by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, after noting that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
The bench, in a judgment delivered on April 13, said, “Though 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 a compromise deed or a settlement agreement has 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.”
The bench said it is trite law that once the parties have entered into a settlement agreement duly authenticated by the mediator, if any party resiles from the terms agreed upon in the settlement, the resiling party must be encumbered with high costs.
The bench said any deviation from the terms of the settlement arrived at in mediation and later confirmed by the court should be dealt with strictly, as such deviation undermines the foundational basis of the entire mediation process.
The respondent-wife alleged that the appellant-husband assured her that apart from the considerations specified in the settlement agreement, he would give her jewellery worth Rs 120 crore, along with gold biscuits worth Rs 50 crore, in lieu of the stri dhan (apart from those mentioned in the settlement agreement), before signing the second motion petition. The wife claimed that as the husband did not adhere to his promise, she did not sign the second motion petition.
“Another argument raised by the wife, that she only agreed to exclude these terms from the settlement agreement upon being asked so by the husband in order to avoid alerting the Income Tax department, and to evade any liability towards wealth tax, is highly egregious. We are appalled at the sheer audacity of such a submission being advanced before a court of law, and deplore the evident disregard exhibited towards the legal system,” said the bench.
The bench said it was unimpressed by the reasons given by the counsel of the wife for resiling out of the settlement agreement. The bench said it is difficult to understand why the condition for the return of jewellery and gold biscuits was not included in the settlement agreement.
The justices said, “We find 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 domestic violence (DV) proceedings.”
Proceedings Under Domestic Violence Act
The bench said the wife’s complaint under the DV Act depicts that there are no specific allegations regarding any sort of domestic violence that could emanate from the pleadings. “A criminal complaint regarding domestic violence, with mere reference to the names of the family members or the husband, without any specific allegation that points towards their active involvement in the commission of such an act of violence, shall be nipped in the bud,” said the bench.
“While we are conscious of the fact that the parties to a long-standing marital dispute are often fueled by emotions, we cannot allow such emotions to take a drastic turn, in as much as allowing the bursts of emotions to form the basis of criminal prosecution. Such criminal prosecution, if allowed, would lead to an abuse of law and cause harassment,” said the bench.
The bench noted that the wife has been living separately from the husband for the last 3-4 years (from 2022-23). The bench said 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 wife."
Hence, the bench said, the proceedings under the DV Act, as initiated by the wife, are liable to be quashed.
They also said that when there is no scope for parties to peacefully co-exist, we see no point in the continuation of any sort of litigation between the parties arising solely out of the matrimonial discord.
"We conclude that the present is 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," said the bench.
The parties were married in 2000, and in 2023, the husband filed for divorce. The husband agreed to withdraw the first divorce petition, to pay the wife Rs 1.5 crore in two instalments, to purchase a car for Rs 14 lakh, and to hand over certain jewellery items. The wife agreed to execute a gift deed to transfer Rs 2.5 crore from their joint business account to the husband. But, before the second motion, the wife withdrew consent for mutual divorce.
Also Read:
