The Delhi High Court has held that a spouse cannot be compelled to proceed with a divorce by mutual consent after withdrawing consent, even if both parties had previously entered into a mediated settlement agreement. The Court ruled that such a decision, by itself, does not amount to wilful disobedience warranting contempt proceedings.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a mediated settlement agreement dated October 17, 2025.
Under the settlement, both parties had agreed to dissolve their marriage through mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband had agreed to pay a total of ₹3.6 lakh in two equal instalments of ₹1.8 lakh each.
Their statements were recorded before the Family Court on October 28, 2025, following which the husband withdrew his divorce petition. However, when he subsequently prepared the First Motion divorce petition and shared it with the wife, she refused to sign the documents.
The husband claimed that he had arranged the first instalment through a loan and obtained a demand draft, causing him financial prejudice. The wife, however, informed the Court that she was no longer willing to seek divorce by mutual consent.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, which established that mutual consent must continue until the divorce decree is passed and either spouse can withdraw consent before that stage.
It also referred to the Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in Chhavi Agarwal v. Anurag Goel, which clarified that refusing to proceed with mutual consent divorce does not, by itself, attract contempt proceedings.
The Court observed:
“Thus, merely because the Respondent has had second thoughts and is no longer inclined to seek divorce by mutual consent, her conduct cannot be held to constitute wilful and deliberate disobedience warranting initiation of contempt proceedings. The essential ingredients of Civil Contempt are, therefore, not made out.”
The Court further noted that the wife had not received any settlement amount because the first instalment was payable only during the First Motion proceedings, which never took place.
It clarified:
“Though the Petitioner withdrew his Divorce Petition in terms of the settlement, this circumstance, by itself, would not be sufficient to hold the Respondent guilty of wilful disobedience of an Order or Undertaking given to the Court.”
Holding that the wife could not be compelled to give consent for mutual divorce, the Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt petition along with pending applications.
However, it clarified that the husband remained free to pursue other legal remedies for enforcement of the settlement or protection of his legal rights.
