New Delhi: In a classic case of how court proceedings are misused in matrimonial disputes – a woman agreed to a divorce and signed a financial settlement for separation, but after receiving a huge chunk of money from her husband, she not only reneged on the promise, but also filed a criminal case against him and his family members. Supreme Court On Monday, it used its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and also quashed the domestic violence case, ignoring her protest.Although the wife said she withdrew her consent because the husband did not return her jewelery worth Rs 120 crore and gold biscuits worth Rs 50 crore, which were not mentioned in the agreement so as to “avoid alerting the Income Tax Department”, a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi refused to give credence to her allegation by observing that the issue was not mentioned anywhere, including in the WhatsApp chats between the estranged couple.The court said that if any settlement deed or compromise agreement has been entered into between the parties with respect to the complete and final settlement of their disputes, then in that case it is not open to the party to deviate from the terms and conditions agreed upon between them. As per the agreement, the husband had paid her Rs 75 lakh as first installment and Rs 14 lakh to buy the car and also returned the jewelery mentioned in the agreement.“It is common law that once the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, which has been duly certified by the arbitrator, in case of any flexibility from the terms agreed in the agreement, the opposing party will have to bear the burden of heavy costs. Any deviation from the terms of the agreement arrived at in mediation and subsequently confirmed by the Court must be dealt with strictly as such deviation attacks the very foundation of the entire process of arbitration,” the bench said.Referring to the wife’s claim regarding gold worth Rs 170 crore that she had agreed to exclude these terms from the settlement agreement only at the instance of the husband in order to alert the Income Tax Department and avoid any liability towards wealth tax, the court termed her arguments as “extremely serious”. “We are appalled by the audacity to appear before the court and condemn the clear disregard for the legal system displayed,” it said.The court said that she failed to mention any specific incident of violence committed by the husband or his mother to justify her criminal case and said that the case was registered only after she had withdrawn her consent for mutual divorce. “A criminal complaint regarding domestic violence merely mentioning the names of the family members or the husband without any specific allegation, pointing to their active participation in such act of violence, will be quashed at the outset,” the bench said.“While we are conscious of the fact that the parties to a long-standing matrimonial dispute are often driven by emotions, we cannot allow such emotions to take such a big form as to permit outbursts of emotions to form the basis of criminal prosecution. If such criminal prosecution is allowed, it will lead to abuse of law and oppression.”The court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay the final installment of Rs 70 lakh and also quashed all civil and criminal cases filed by the couple against each other. The court accepted the plea of ​​the husband, who had approached the court through his lawyer Prabhjeet Johar for divorce.