Wife broke promise to divorce, Supreme Court granted divorce citing Article 142

NEW DELHI: In a classic case of abuse of court process in matrimonial disputes, a woman agreed to divorce and signed a financial separation agreement, but not only reneged on her promise but also filed a criminal case against him and his family after getting a major portion of the money from her husband. this Supreme Court On Monday, she invoked special jurisdiction under Section 142 to dissolve the marriage and drop the domestic violence case, despite her objections.Although the wife claimed that she withdrew her consent as the husband did not return jewelery worth Rs 120 crore and gold biscuits worth Rs 50 crore “to avoid alerting the Income Tax Department”, which was not mentioned in the agreement, a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi refused to believe her allegation as they pointed out that the issue was never mentioned anywhere, including in a WhatsApp chat between the two. couple.The court said that if the parties reach a compromise agreement or a settlement agreement for the full and final settlement of the dispute, then in such circumstances, the party cannot waive the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. According to the settlement agreement, the husband had paid her a down payment of Rs 7.5 million and a car purchase fee of Rs 1.4 million and returned her jewelery as per the agreement.“As a truism, once the parties have reached a settlement agreement and it has been duly certified by the mediator, if either party refuses to abide by the terms agreed in the settlement agreement, the party who re-refuses must bear heavy costs. Any deviation from the terms of the settlement reached at mediation and subsequently confirmed by the court should be dealt with strictly, as such a deviation is an attack on the very foundation of the entire mediation process,” the judge said.Referring to the wife’s claim of Rs 170 crore in gold and that she had agreed to exclude these clauses from the settlement agreement only at the request of her husband to avoid alerting the income tax department and evade any liability for property tax, the court termed her contention as “grossly egregious”. “We are appalled that such a bold opinion was advanced in court and deplore this clear disregard for the legal system,” the statement said.The court said she did not mention any specific incidents of violence committed by her husband or his mother to justify criminal prosecution against them, noting that the case was brought only after she withdrew her consent to the parties’ divorce. “Criminal complaints regarding domestic violence which merely mention the names of family members or husbands without any specific allegation that they were actively involved in committing such violence should be nipped in the bud,” the bench said.“While we recognize that parties to long-standing matrimonial disputes are often inflamed by emotion, we cannot allow such emotions to take a sharp turn, any more than allowing outbursts of emotion to form the basis of criminal prosecution. If such criminal prosecution is allowed, it will lead to abuse of the law and cause harassment,” it said.The court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay the final installment of Rs 70 lakh to her and quashed all civil and criminal cases the couple had filed against each other. The court approved the divorce petition filed by the husband through lawyer Prabjit Jha.