QuickDivorce.in<\/a> assists couples across all jurisdictions in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Statutory Framework: What Section 13B Requires<\/h2>\n\n\n\n Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides the legal basis for divorce by mutual consent. It operates in two stages:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Section 13B(1) \u2014 The First Motion:<\/strong> Both parties jointly present a petition to the District Court (or Family Court) stating that they have been living separately for one year or more, that they have not been able to live together, and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. The court records this petition and the case enters the cooling-off period.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSection 13B(2) \u2014 The Second Motion:<\/strong> Not earlier than six months and not later than eighteen months from the date of the first motion, both parties must jointly move the court for a decree of divorce. The court, on being satisfied that the conditions are met and the averments in the petition are true, passes the decree.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe critical word in Section 13B(2) is “both.” Both parties must move the court. The motion for the second hearing is a joint act. If either party does not appear or does not affirm their consent at the second motion, the court cannot grant the divorce under Section 13B.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This structure \u2014 requiring continuous mutual consent from filing to decree \u2014 is what creates the legal space for withdrawal. The question is how wide that space is, and when it closes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash (1992): The Foundational Ruling<\/h2>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, 1992, is the foundational authority on withdrawal of consent in mutual divorce proceedings. Every subsequent case on this question \u2014 every High Court judgment, every Supreme Court ruling \u2014 begins with Sureshta Devi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The facts were straightforward. A couple had jointly filed a petition for mutual divorce. During the six-month cooling-off period, the wife withdrew her consent. The husband argued that the consent given at the time of the first motion could not be unilaterally withdrawn \u2014 that having jointly filed the petition, both parties were bound to proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court rejected this argument. The Supreme Court established several crucial principles: the court must hear both parties in a mutual consent divorce; if either party withdraws consent by stating “I have withdrawn my consent” or “I am not a willing party to the divorce,” the court cannot proceed with the divorce; and most importantly, mutual consent must continue until the divorce decree is passed \u2014 it cannot be based solely on the initial petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Apex Court opined that normally it is necessary that the consent of both parties subsist till the end of the divorce proceedings under Section 13B, and that withdrawal of consent by one of the parties leads to the dismissal of the petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The reasoning was grounded in the text and purpose of Section 13B: the word “consent” implies a continuing state of mind, not a one-time act. A consent given and then withdrawn is no longer consent. The cooling-off period exists precisely to allow parties to reflect on their decision \u2014 and reflection may lead to reconsideration. A party that changes their mind during the cooling-off period has exercised exactly the right that the statutory structure contemplates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What Sureshta Devi Established \u2014 and Left Open<\/h3>\n\n\n\n Sureshta Devi established the general rule: consent may be withdrawn at any time before the decree. But it did not address the more complex scenario that later cases would confront \u2014 what happens when consent is withdrawn after the parties have entered into a detailed settlement agreement, one party has received substantial financial benefits under that agreement, and withdrawal appears designed not to reflect genuine reconsideration but to gain further tactical advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That question \u2014 the question of whether the right to withdraw is absolute or subject to equitable limitation \u2014 remained open after Sureshta Devi and has been the central issue in the most significant mutual divorce cases of the subsequent three decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Cooling-Off Period as a Tactical Weapon: The Problem the Courts Confronted<\/h2>\n\n\n\n Under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a waiting period exists between the first and second motion. The original purpose of this cooling-off period was to give couples an opportunity for reconciliation. But in practice, many litigants use this phase as a negotiation weapon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The pattern courts began to see with increasing frequency was this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A couple would negotiate a detailed settlement \u2014 covering alimony, property division, child custody, return of stridhan, and withdrawal of pending criminal cases. The settlement would be reduced to a formal agreement, filed before the Family Court or a mediator. The first motion would be recorded. One party \u2014 typically the party who had received financial benefits under the settlement \u2014 would then withdraw consent during the cooling-off period. The withdrawal was not because they had genuinely reconsidered the divorce. It was because they wanted more \u2014 more money, revised custody terms, or simply to prolong the litigation as leverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The result: the other party was left with a dismissed divorce petition, a depleted financial position (having paid settlement amounts that were now in the other party’s hands), and no remedy \u2014 because the divorce had been dismissed and the non-consenting party could not be compelled to return the benefits they had accepted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This pattern created an urgent need for judicial correction. The Supreme Court responded \u2014 incrementally, and then decisively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Amardeep Singh v. Harbheen Kaur (2017): Waiving the Cooling-Off Period<\/h2>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in Amardeep Singh v. Harbheen Kaur addressed one dimension of the problem \u2014 the use of the cooling-off period as a delay tactic \u2014 by holding that the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) is directory, not mandatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court held that where the parties have already been living separately for a long period, all efforts at mediation and reconciliation have failed, and the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Family Court has the discretion to waive the six-month cooling-off period and pass the divorce decree at the earliest practicable date. The court identified factors to be considered: the duration of the marriage, the length of separation, the number of attempts at reconciliation, whether children are involved, and whether there is any reasonable possibility of the marriage being saved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Amardeep Singh did not directly address the withdrawal of consent question \u2014 but it signalled the court’s growing impatience with procedural delay as a litigation tactic in matrimonial proceedings, and it set the stage for the more fundamental development in Shilpa Sailesh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023): Article 142 and Irretrievable Breakdown<\/h2>\n\n\n\n In May 2023, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan \u2014 a ruling that fundamentally altered the relationship between consent, procedure, and the court’s power to dissolve marriages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in May 2023 reaffirmed that it has the power to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown \u2014 which is, per se, not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act \u2014 under Article 142(1) of the Indian Constitution, and that it can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent without following the procedural requirements set out in the HMA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Constitution Bench held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb The Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 to do “complete justice” is not subject to the procedural requirements of Section 13B \u2014 it operates independently of the statute<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Where a marriage has irretrievably broken down \u2014 evidenced by prolonged separation, failure of all reconciliation attempts, and multiplicity of litigations \u2014 the Supreme Court can dissolve the marriage even if one party has withdrawn consent<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb In exercising this power, the court considers the totality of circumstances, including the duration of separation, the existence and interests of children, the financial settlement between the parties, and the realistic prospects of reconciliation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb The cooling-off period can be waived, and the procedural requirements of Section 13B can be bypassed, when the rigidity of procedure would produce injustice rather than serve the statute’s purpose<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shilpa Sailesh did not hold that the right to withdraw consent had been abolished. It held that where consent is withdrawn, the withdrawing party does not thereby acquire an absolute veto over the dissolution of the marriage \u2014 because the Supreme Court’s Article 142 power exists independently and can be invoked to dissolve the marriage notwithstanding the withdrawal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 2026 Landmark: Consent Cannot Be Withdrawn After Settlement Benefits Are Accepted<\/h2>\n\n\n\n The most significant development in this area of law in recent years came in April 2026, when the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that directly addressed the abuse-of-consent-withdrawal problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Facts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n The husband and wife were married in February 2000 and had two children. Due to temperamental differences, disputes arose and the parties separated. The husband subsequently filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The matter was referred to mediation, where the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated May 16, 2024, resolving all disputes. Both parties agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The husband agreed to pay \u20b91.5 crore as full and final settlement \u2014 \u20b975 lakh at the first motion and the balance at the second motion. Jewellery, property rights, shares, and financial assets were to be transferred as agreed. Both parties undertook not to initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first motion for divorce was allowed. \u20b975 lakh and other benefits were paid to the wife. The wife transferred significant financial assets to the husband. However, before the second motion, the wife withdrew her consent and later initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The husband initiated contempt proceedings in 2025 after the wife withdrew her consent for mutual divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court’s Ruling<\/h3>\n\n\n\n The Court held that while withdrawal of consent in mutual divorce is permissible, a party cannot resile from a duly executed settlement agreement except on limited grounds such as force, fraud, undue influence, or non-fulfilment of obligations. Emphasising that vague and unsubstantiated allegations cannot sustain criminal prosecution under the Domestic Violence Act, the Court termed the proceedings as an abuse of process of law and an afterthought to prolong litigation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
. Noting prolonged separation, failure of settlement despite partial compliance, and multiplicity of proceedings, the Court concluded that the matrimonial bond had irretrievably broken down and granted the divorce decree under Article 142.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A spouse who has voluntarily entered into a settlement and derived benefits therefrom cannot subsequently withdraw consent in a manner that defeats the very foundation of that settlement. This decision marks a shift from rigid statutory interpretation to equity-driven adjudication, reinforcing that law cannot be reduced to a tactical instrument of harassment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What the 2026 Ruling Established<\/h3>\n\n\n\n The 2026 ruling did not overrule Sureshta Devi \u2014 the general right to withdraw consent before the decree remains. What it established is a clear equitable limitation on that right:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Settlement-benefit bar:<\/strong> A party who has accepted substantial financial benefits under a mediated or negotiated settlement cannot withdraw consent merely to gain further advantage. Accepting the benefits of a settlement binds the party to the obligations under it \u2014 including the obligation to proceed with the divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Abuse of process:<\/strong> Withdrawal of consent accompanied by the filing of vague and unsubstantiated criminal complaints \u2014 such as Domestic Violence Act proceedings initiated only after withdrawal of consent \u2014 constitutes abuse of process of law. Courts will not allow criminal litigation to be used as a post-settlement pressure tactic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Article 142 as the corrective:<\/strong> Even where the statutory framework under Section 13B cannot produce the divorce (because one party has withdrawn consent), the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 can and will be invoked where the totality of the circumstances \u2014 prolonged separation, failed settlement, multiplicity of proceedings \u2014 demonstrates irretrievable breakdown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Limited grounds for resiling from settlement:<\/strong> A party can resile from a settlement agreement only on narrow grounds \u2014 force, fraud, undue influence, or non-fulfilment of the other party’s obligations under the agreement. A change of mind, a desire for more money, or tactical considerations are not valid grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhen Withdrawal of Consent Remains Legally Valid<\/h2>\n\n\n\n The 2026 ruling did not eliminate the right to withdraw consent. It identified the circumstances in which withdrawal is a legitimate exercise of a legal right and distinguished them from circumstances in which it constitutes abuse of process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Withdrawal of consent remains legally valid and effective \u2014 leading to dismissal of the mutual divorce petition \u2014 in the following circumstances:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Genuine Reconsideration During the Cooling-Off Period<\/h3>\n\n\n\n Where both parties have filed the first motion but no settlement has been reached and no benefits have been exchanged, and one party genuinely reconsiders their decision during the six-month cooling-off period, withdrawal is fully valid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The cooling-off period is intended to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and seek advice from relatives and friends. A party that uses this period for its intended purpose \u2014 genuine reflection \u2014 and then withdraws consent is exercising their right exactly as the statute intended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Withdrawal Before Any Settlement Is Concluded<\/h3>\n\n\n\n Where the parties have jointly filed the first motion but have not yet entered into a settlement agreement \u2014 alimony, custody, and property matters remain unresolved \u2014 either party may withdraw at any stage before the decree. No settlement terms bind them, no benefits have been accepted, and the withdrawal reflects a genuine unwillingness to proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Grounds of Force, Fraud, or Undue Influence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n Where a party was induced to sign the joint petition or the settlement agreement through force, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence, withdrawal of consent is not merely a legal right \u2014 it is the appropriate remedy. A consent obtained through coercion is not genuine consent at all, and the court will treat it accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Non-Fulfilment of Settlement Obligations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n Where the other party has failed to fulfil their obligations under the settlement \u2014 failed to pay agreed amounts, failed to transfer agreed property, failed to withdraw agreed criminal cases \u2014 the aggrieved party is entitled to treat the settlement as breached and withdraw consent on that basis. The 2026 ruling explicitly identified non-fulfilment of obligations as a valid ground for resiling from a settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Specific Scenario: Withdrawal After Accepting Settlement Money<\/h2>\n\n\n\n The scenario that the 2026 ruling addressed most directly \u2014 and which is the most practically significant \u2014 is withdrawal of consent by a party who has already accepted substantial financial benefits under the settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The facts of the 2026 case illustrate the pattern clearly: the wife received \u20b975 lakh at the first motion, jewellery was returned, financial assets were transferred \u2014 and she then withdrew consent before the second motion. This pattern \u2014 accept the money, withdraw the consent \u2014 had become sufficiently common that it required a definitive judicial response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court’s response was unambiguous: a spouse who has voluntarily entered into a settlement and derived benefits therefrom cannot subsequently withdraw consent in a manner that defeats the very foundation of that settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The practical implication for parties structuring mutual divorce settlements is significant:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Where one party is concerned about the other party withdrawing consent after receiving settlement payments, the structure of payment should be considered carefully \u2014 staggered payments tied to procedural milestones, with the bulk of payment at or after the second motion, reduce the incentive for post-payment withdrawal<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Settlement agreements should include explicit provisions addressing the consequences of withdrawal \u2014 including obligations to return received amounts and the right to invoke Article 142 in the Supreme Court<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Courts and mediators should ensure that settlement agreements are comprehensive, clearly record the parties’ consent freely given, and are filed before the court as part of the consent terms<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 142: The Court’s Power Beyond Consent<\/h2>\n\n\n\n One of the most important practical implications of the Shilpa Sailesh and 2026 rulings is the confirmation that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution \u2014 the power to pass any order necessary to do complete justice \u2014 can be invoked to dissolve a marriage even where consent has been withdrawn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This means that where mutual divorce proceedings have broken down because of withdrawal of consent, a party is not necessarily without remedy. If the marriage has irretrievably broken down \u2014 evidenced by prolonged separation, multiplicity of litigation, failed mediation, and the improbability of reconciliation \u2014 the Supreme Court can be petitioned to exercise Article 142 jurisdiction and dissolve the marriage directly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The factors courts consider in exercising Article 142 jurisdiction include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Duration of the marriage \ud83d\udccb Length of the period of separation \ud83d\udccb The number of attempts at reconciliation and their outcome \ud83d\udccb The existence of children and their interests \ud83d\udccb Whether a settlement agreement exists, its terms, and what benefits have been exchanged under it \ud83d\udccb The nature of pending litigation \u2014 whether criminal cases are genuine or tactical \ud83d\udccb The overall assessment of whether any realistic possibility of reconciliation exists<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 142 jurisdiction is not a substitute for consent \u2014 it is a remedy for irretrievable breakdown. It does not apply to marriages that have recently broken down or where reconciliation remains possible. But for marriages that have been functionally over for years, where parties have been litigating for a decade, and where consent has been withdrawn as a tactical manoeuvre rather than as a genuine reconsideration, Article 142 provides an avenue for the court to end the legal fiction of a subsisting marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Delhi High Court on Waiving the Separation Requirement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n In a significant December 2025 ruling, a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court addressed whether the one-year separation period under Section 13B(1) could be waived \u2014 going further than the Supreme Court’s Amardeep Singh ruling, which had addressed only the six-month cooling-off period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Delhi High Court held that once the court is satisfied that the parties have made out a case on the relevant touchstone \u2014 and where the court decides to entertain the first motion before expiry of the one-year separation period, and the parties have also made out a case for waiver of the six-month cooling-off period \u2014 and the court is also convinced that divorce should be granted on mutual consent, there is no justification for the court to withhold the passing of the divorce decree until the one-year separation period expires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This ruling \u2014 combined with the Amardeep Singh waiver of the cooling-off period and the Supreme Court’s Article 142 jurisprudence \u2014 signals a clear judicial direction: procedural requirements in mutual divorce proceedings are increasingly being treated as flexible frameworks to be adapted to the needs of justice, not rigid bars that allow one party to hold the other hostage to procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Practical Implications: What Parties in Mutual Divorce Proceedings Should Know<\/h2>\n\n\n\n Understanding the current legal position on withdrawal of consent has important practical implications for both parties in a mutual divorce proceeding:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the Party Considering Withdrawal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udccb If you are within the cooling-off period, no settlement has been concluded, and no financial benefits have been accepted, withdrawal of consent is your legal right \u2014 and it ends the mutual divorce petition<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb If you have signed a comprehensive settlement agreement and accepted significant financial benefits under it, withdrawal of consent may not prevent the divorce \u2014 the court may invoke Article 142 to dissolve the marriage despite your withdrawal<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Filing criminal cases after withdrawing consent \u2014 domestic violence complaints, dowry harassment complaints \u2014 will be carefully scrutinised by courts for whether they are genuine or tactical. Courts have described such post-withdrawal filings as “abuse of process” and “afterthoughts to prolong litigation”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb The only legitimate grounds for resiling from a settlement are force, fraud, undue influence, or the other party’s non-fulfilment of their settlement obligations \u2014 a desire for better terms is not a valid ground<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the Party Facing Withdrawal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udccb Where your spouse has withdrawn consent after accepting settlement benefits, the 2026 Supreme Court ruling provides a strong basis for approaching the Supreme Court under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage notwithstanding the withdrawal<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Document carefully what settlement benefits the withdrawing party has received \u2014 bank transfer records, jewellery receipts, property transfer documents \u2014 as this evidence is central to an Article 142 application<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Do not escalate by filing retaliatory criminal complaints \u2014 courts treat escalation of criminal litigation after withdrawal of consent as further evidence of the breakdown of the marriage, but retaliatory filings may complicate your own position<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Consult a family law advocate immediately \u2014 the window for approaching the Supreme Court under Article 142 requires strategic preparation and specialist expertise<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For Both Parties in Structuring the Settlement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udccb Structure payment milestones to align with procedural milestones \u2014 the bulk of financial settlement at or after the second motion reduces the risk of post-payment withdrawal<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Settlement agreements should be comprehensive, freely signed, and filed before the court \u2014 a court-filed settlement carries significantly more weight than a privately executed document<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Include in the settlement agreement explicit provisions on what happens if either party withdraws consent \u2014 the obligation to return received benefits, the right to invoke Article 142, and an acknowledgment that the settlement was freely entered into without coercion<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Special Marriage Act: The Parallel Framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n For couples whose marriage was solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 \u2014 which applies to inter-religious marriages and civil marriages regardless of religion \u2014 mutual divorce is governed by Section 28 of that Act, which is substantively identical to Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The same principles on withdrawal of consent apply to Special Marriage Act mutual divorce proceedings. Sureshta Devi’s holding that consent must subsist until the decree, Shilpa Sailesh’s Article 142 jurisprudence, and the 2026 ruling’s equitable limitation on post-settlement withdrawal all apply with equal force to proceedings under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n Can one party withdraw from mutual divorce after the first motion is filed?<\/strong> Yes \u2014 in principle, either party may withdraw consent at any time before the decree is passed. However, if a comprehensive settlement has been concluded and one party has accepted substantial financial benefits under it, withdrawal of consent may not prevent the court from dissolving the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat happens to the divorce petition if one party withdraws consent?<\/strong> Under the general rule established in Sureshta Devi (1992), withdrawal of consent by either party leads to the dismissal of the mutual divorce petition under Section 13B. The parties revert to their status as a married couple. However, the other party may then file a contested divorce petition on fault-based grounds, or \u2014 in appropriate cases \u2014 approach the Supreme Court under Article 142 for dissolution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCan the Supreme Court grant divorce even if one party refuses?<\/strong> Yes. The Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution allows it to pass orders necessary to do complete justice, including dissolving a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even where one party has withdrawn consent or refuses to consent. This power was reaffirmed by a Constitution Bench in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) and applied in the 2026 ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat if one party withdraws consent after accepting alimony?<\/strong> The 2026 Supreme Court ruling addresses this directly: a party who has accepted substantial financial benefits under a settlement agreement cannot subsequently withdraw consent to defeat the settlement. The court held this constitutes abuse of process, and invoked Article 142 to dissolve the marriage despite the withdrawal.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCan the six-month cooling-off period be waived?<\/strong> Yes. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amardeep Singh v. Harbheen Kaur (2017), the six-month cooling-off period is directory and not mandatory. Courts may waive it where the parties have been separated for a long period, all reconciliation efforts have failed, and the marriage has irretrievably broken down. An application for waiver must be filed before the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat if withdrawal of consent is followed by a criminal complaint?<\/strong> Courts have increasingly viewed criminal complaints \u2014 particularly Domestic Violence Act proceedings \u2014 filed shortly after withdrawal of consent as tactical instruments rather than genuine complaints. The 2026 Supreme Court ruling specifically noted that vague and unsubstantiated criminal proceedings filed after withdrawal constitute abuse of process. This does not mean all such complaints are disregarded \u2014 genuine complaints of domestic violence are always entertained \u2014 but tactical filing is scrutinised closely.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIs the right to withdraw consent the same under the Special Marriage Act?<\/strong> Yes. Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 \u2014 which governs mutual divorce for inter-religious and civil marriages \u2014 is substantively identical to Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the same principles on consent withdrawal, cooling-off period waiver, and Article 142 jurisdiction apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n The right to withdraw from mutual divorce in India is real \u2014 but it is no longer absolute. The legal landscape has evolved significantly from Sureshta Devi’s foundational holding that consent must be continuous, through Amardeep Singh’s waiver of the cooling-off period, through Shilpa Sailesh’s reaffirmation of Article 142 power, to the 2026 Supreme Court ruling that a party cannot withdraw consent after accepting the benefits of a concluded settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What the law now reflects is a more sophisticated understanding of consent in the context of matrimonial litigation. Consent given freely in the context of genuine reconsideration \u2014 using the cooling-off period for its intended purpose \u2014 is honoured. Consent withdrawn tactically, after financial benefits have been pocketed and as a lever for further concessions, is not. The legal system has tools \u2014 Article 142, equitable limitations on settlement withdrawal, judicial scrutiny of post-withdrawal litigation \u2014 to distinguish between the two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For parties navigating mutual divorce proceedings, the practical message is clear: structure settlements carefully, document every exchange of benefits, approach the process in good faith, and \u2014 if consent is withdrawn in bad faith by the other party after settlement benefits have been accepted \u2014 know that the Supreme Court has both the power and the willingness to provide a remedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Act in good faith. Structure the settlement carefully. Know your rights \u2014 and their limits.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nGet Expert Mutual Divorce Legal Assistance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udfe1 QuickDivorce.in<\/strong> provides complete mutual divorce filing, settlement drafting, court representation, and NRI divorce services across all jurisdictions in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udfe1Visit LegalTax.in<\/a> <\/strong>for other Legal and Trademark related services as \ud83d\udc49 Money Recovery Cases<\/a><\/strong> \ud83d\udc49 Property Disputes<\/a><\/strong> \ud83d\udc49 Business & Licence Registrations<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udfe1Visit Business24hub<\/a><\/strong> for IT services <\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udc49 Mutual Consent Divorce at QuickDivorce.in<\/a> \ud83d\udc49 Contested Divorce Filing<\/a> \ud83d\udc49 Child Custody and Maintenance<\/a> \ud83d\udc49 Matrimonial Property Settlement<\/a> \ud83d\udc49 NRI Divorce Services<\/a> \ud83d\udc49 Alimony and Maintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udfe1 Protect Your Rights<\/strong> \ud83d\udc49 Domestic Violence Legal Support at QuickDivorce.in<\/a> \ud83d\udc49 Stridhan Recovery<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udcde Call Now: +91 8595439395<\/a><\/strong> \ud83d\udd50 Free Consultation: Monday to Saturday, 10 AM to 6 PM<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Views: 5 Introduction Mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is built entirely on consent. Both spouses must agree \u2014 freely, … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":3298,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_glsr_average":0,"_glsr_ranking":0,"_glsr_reviews":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[153],"tags":[289],"class_list":["post-3297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-mutual-divorce","tag-can-one-party-withdraw-from-mutual-divorce-in-india"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3297"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3300,"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3297\/revisions\/3300"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"mutual-divorce-withdraw\"](\"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/divorce-one-img.png\" "\\"\\"")