Section 12 – The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – No specific allegations regarding any sort of domestic violence – Prolonged delay in raising a substantial ground raises serious suspicion as to the credibility and authenticity of the allegations – Failure to mention any event describing any sort of violence carried out either by the husband or his mother – 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 concise facts of the case is that the marriage between the Appellant/husband and the Respondent/wife was solemnized on 19.02.2000 and due to temperamental differences, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties and they started living separately from the year 2022-23. Consequently, the Appellant-Husband had filed a divorce Petition. After both the parties had agreed to put an end to all the matrimonial disputes between them and their family members, and additionally both the parties had also agreed to refrain from instituting any case against each other or their family members. Subsequently, the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket Court House, Delhi, vide order dated 13.07.2023 had referred the matter to mediation. Pursuant to mediation, a settlement was entered into between the parties on 16.05.2024, settling all the disputes between them by way of entering into a settlement agreement. While the matter stood thus, the Respondent/wife had withdrawn her consent for the mutual divorce and in response, the Appellant/husband had filed a Contempt Petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket District Court, New Delhi. Thereafter, a complaint bearing DV Complaint No. 3186 of 2025, was filed, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, Delhi, by the Respondent/wife under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, against the Appellant/husband and his mother and summons were issued against them. The Appellant/husband also filed a Contempt petition before the High Court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondent/wife for alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement. The High Court in the Quashing Petition, vide Impugned Order passed an interim order issuing notice, and agreeing to continue the D.V. proceedings while directing the Respondent/wife to deposit 89,00,000/- and retain the jewellery received by her in terms of the Settlement Agreement. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has filed the present Special leave Petition and has also preferred an application seeking Decree of Divorce under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that on a perusal of the complaint filed by the Respondent/wife under the DV Act, it depicts that there are no specific allegations regarding any sort of domestic violence that could emanate from the pleadings and that a prolonged delay in raising a substantial ground that certain jewellery articles were not returned to her, raises serious suspicion as to the credibility and authenticity of the allegations. It was further observed that, the Respondent/wife has failed to mention any event describing any sort of violence carried out either by the Appellant-Husband or his mother. It is trite law that 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. Furthermore, as the parties have been living separately for the last couple of years, the proceedings under the DV Act appear to be premeditated and filed with a motive to sustain some sort of litigation between the parties after the respondent 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. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly and categorically held that the proceedings initiated under the DV Act were merely an afterthought, as they were filed after notice was issued in the contempt petition filed by the Appellant-Husband. In addition to this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as the sacrosanct thread tying the parties in this martial relationship has been snapped for long and since there is no possibility that the parties could be united for good in a matrimonial relationship and as it is also evident that there has been a complete and irretrievable breakdown of the matrimonial relationship between the parties besides no scope of peaceful co-existence exercising the power under Article 142(1) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted divorce as there had been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Dhananjay Rathi Vs. Ruchika Rathi [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1924 of 2026 (2026 INSC 360)] - Date of Judgment: 13.04.2026
