Article 142 Divorce on a Mediated Settlement: Supreme Court

Divorce by Mutual Consent Under Article 142 on a Mediated Settlement: Supreme Court Closes All Matrimonial Cases

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

A wife sought transfer of her husband's restitution petition from a Delhi family court to Rajasthan. After the Supreme Court referred the couple to its Mediation Centre, they settled. The Bench dissolved the marriage by mutual consent under Article 142, recorded payment of Rs 20 lakh in court, quashed the FIR and the divorce, maintenance and restitution cases between them, and barred fresh litigation (paras 1, 6, 10, 14).

Key holdings

A transfer petition ended in a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 once the parties settled through the Supreme Court Mediation Centre (paras 6-7, 14).

The Court satisfied itself, by interacting with the parties, that the settlement was voluntary and that reconciliation was impossible (paras 8, 11).

The listed FIR, divorce, maintenance and restitution cases were quashed, and the list was declared illustrative, not exhaustive (para 14).

The parties were barred from starting fresh litigation against each other or their family members over the marriage (para 14).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The parties married under Hindu rites; no child was born, and the wife left the matrimonial home around May 2023 (paras 2-3). In July 2024 she filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, along with maintenance proceedings, in Rajasthan (para 4). The husband then petitioned a Delhi family court for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, and she sought transfer of that case to Rajasthan (paras 1, 5). On 06.05.2026 the Court referred the disputes to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre; the parties signed a settlement on 04.08.2026 and jointly applied under Article 142 for divorce by mutual consent and closure of all pending cases (paras 6-7).

Court's Findings

The Bench perused the settlement and interacted with the parties, who affirmed that they had settled voluntarily, without coercion, duress, undue influence, fraud or collusion, that no claims remained outstanding and that there was no possibility of reconciliation (para 8). Under the settlement the husband was to pay Rs 20 lakh as a one-time settlement and alimony, in full and final settlement of all claims including streedhan, maintenance and permanent alimony, and to return the wife's belongings (para 9). He handed over a demand draft for the amount in court, and the other terms had already been complied with (para 10). As the parties had lived separately for more than three years, their disputes were resolved and reconciliation was not possible, the Court was satisfied that the settlement was genuine, voluntary and bona fide (para 11). It held the case fit for its Article 142 jurisdiction, to bring a quietus to the disputes and secure complete justice (para 13), and recorded its appreciation of the mediator's efforts (para 12).

Legal Principle

Where spouses settle all their disputes through Supreme Court mediation and the Court is satisfied that the settlement is genuine, voluntary and bona fide and that reconciliation is impossible, it may under Article 142 grant divorce by mutual consent in a transfer petition and close every connected civil and criminal case (paras 11, 13-14).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For couples litigating in two States, this order shows how a transfer petition can become the route to a final settlement. Once the Supreme Court referred the dispute to its Mediation Centre, the parties agreed terms, the husband paid Rs 20 lakh in court, and one Article 142 order ended the marriage and every listed or connected matrimonial case (paras 6, 10, 14). The Bench first checked with the parties that the settlement was voluntary (paras 8, 11). Parties should list every pending case and complete the agreed terms before the hearing. On the wider Article 142 power, see Shilpa Sailesh, where the Constitution Bench held the Court can dissolve a marriage for irretrievable breakdown.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.