.
NEW DELHI: In a classic case of how court proceedings are misused in matrimonial disputes– a woman agreed for a divorce and signed a financial settlement agreement for separation but she not only reneged from the promise after getting a substantial part of the money from her husband, but she also filed a criminal case against him and his family members. The Supreme Court on Monday invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and also quashed the domestic violence case, brushing aside her opposition.Though the wife submitted that she withdrew her consent as the husband did not return her jewellery worth Rs 120 crore and gold biscuits worth Rs 50 crore which was not mentioned in the agreement in order to “avoid alerting the income tax department”, a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi refused to give credence to her allegation after noting that the issue was never mentioned anywhere including in the WhatsApp chat between the estranged couple.The court said 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. As per the settlement, the husband had paid her Rs 75 lakh as first instalment and Rs 14 lakh for purchase of the car and also returned her the jewellery items as mentioned in the agreement. “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,” the bench said.Referring to the wife’s claim about Rs 170 crore gold and 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, the court termed her arguments as “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,” it said.The court said that she failed to mention any particular event of violence carried out either by the husband or his mother to justify their criminal prosecution and noted that the case was lodged only after she withdrew her consent for mutual divorce. “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 commission of such an act of violence, shall be nipped in the bud,” the bench said.”While we are conscious of the fact that the parties to a long standing marital dispute are often fuelled 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,” it said.The court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay the final installment of Rs 70 lakh to her and also quashed all civil and criminal cases lodged by the couple against each other. The court allowed the plea of the husband who approached the court through his advocate Prabhjit Jauhar for divorce.
