Anurag Vijaykumar Goel (Appellant) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Respondents), 2025

Criminal Appeal No. 5277 of 2024

(3 JB of B.R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N. V. ANJARIA, JJ, delivered by K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J)

The Supreme Court in the above case addressed a contentious matrimonial dispute between the husband (Appellant) and his estranged wife (Respondent No. 2), involving criminal charges under Section 498-A IPC and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The case centered around the breakdown of their brief marriage, allegations of harassment and abandonment, and a failed mutual consent divorce.

The parties had been previously married and divorced before entering into this troubled union, which lasted only for a year and nine months. The Appellant had an autistic child from his previous marriage and had gained exclusive ownership of the flat in Mumbai, jointly owned with his last wife, to safeguard the interests of the child. This flat became a focal point in the marital discord with his second wife (Respondent No. 2).

The Appellant stated that the harassment by the Respondent forced him to vacate the shared household and shift to Faridabad, where he resided with his elderly parents and child, and that he had resigned from a high-paying job due to stress.

Subsequently, the Respondent accused the Appellant of domestic violence and alleged that she had been left alone without economic or emotional support. For her survival, she brought her parents into the Mumbai apartment, which she claimed to be her matrimonial home.

The Respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC and initiated criminal proceedings. She then instituted proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the Appellant and his parents. Around the same time, the Appellant filed a divorce petition before the Family Court in Saket, Delhi.

In Mediation, a settlement agreement was signed by both parties in 2022, which stipulated terms for mutual divorce. Both parties moved the first motion under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by mutual consent. Complications arose when the Respondent withdrew before the second motion could be filed. This prompted the Appellant to file a petition before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings pending. He argued that since both parties had voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement during mediation, the criminal case should be quashed.

Simultaneously, the Appellant initiated contempt proceedings before the Delhi High Court, alleging that the Respondent’s withdrawal from the settlement agreement amounted to contempt of court. A Single Judge held the Respondent guilty of contempt, but the Division Bench later reversed that decision, granting her relief.

In the present appeal before the Supreme Court, the court examined whether the Respondent’s refusal to adhere to the settlement agreement and proceed with the second motion for mutual divorce could be grounds for quashing the pending criminal proceedings. It was held that a mutual consent divorce requires continuous mutual agreement till the final stage, and either party has the right to withdraw consent before the decree is passed. Therefore, the Respondent’s withdrawal did not make the divorce legally enforceable.

The other core issue before the court was whether the Appellant and his family members were subjected to the claims of cruelty and harassment over dowry demands. The High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings, leading to the present appeal.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need to prevent the misuse of Section 498A as a tool of vengeance. It reiterated that while protecting women against genuine dowry harassment is crucial, courts must also ensure that innocent individuals are not dragged into frivolous litigation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the Appellant and his family under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, and dissolved the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.