“Perfectly in order”, the Supreme Court said of the High Court order that made a Rs 9.25 lakh marriage-promise settlement unenforceable, while deleting the Rs 5 lakh penalty on the woman who lodged the FIR.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Declining to disturb a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that made a Rs 9.25 lakh settlement in a promise-of-marriage case unenforceable, the Supreme Court has deleted the Rs 5 lakh penalty imposed on the petitioner and cautioned her in the strongest terms. Criticising what it called nefarious practices of using criminal proceedings to put pressure on the other side, the Court also dissolved the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown [XYZ v. State of Haryana and Another].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order on September 28, 2026. The petitioner is the woman who lodged the FIR, and her name is withheld in this report because the case concerns allegations of a sexual offence.
Agreement with the High Court, one change
The Bench said the High Court order was “perfectly in order”, especially considering the manner in which allegations of molestation and sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage are made, and then settled under the coercion exerted by such criminal proceedings being initiated and continued. It, however, chose to modify the directions slightly.
We are perfectly in agreement with the High Court that such nefarious practices undermining the judicial system has to be deprecated in the strongest of terms. Only in the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the order to the extent of deleting the penalty imposed on the petitioner; but cautioning her in the strongest of terms from indulging in such activities hereinafter.
The settlement and the divorce
Insofar as the settlement is concerned, we confirm the order of the High Court which made it unenforceable against the party respondent.
On the proceedings before the Family Court, the Bench invoked Article 142 and granted a divorce to the parties, finding an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with these directions and pending applications were rejected.
How the case reached the Court
The petitioner, a 31-year-old woman, registered an FIR on January 12, 2024. She alleged that while she was tending to her brother in hospital, the respondent offered assistance, became intimate with her on that pretext, and had sexual intercourse with her, to which, even by her own account, she willingly complied believing he would marry her. She also alleged that his parents met her, that a sort of ceremony was conducted, and that she was later abandoned. These are allegations made by the petitioner; they are untested, the Court expressed no view on their truth, and the respondent is presumed innocent.
A settlement was reached under which the respondent promised to pay Rs 9,25,000, of which Rs 4,50,000 was paid. By its order of December 2, 2025 in CRM-M No. 58584 of 2025, the High Court found that the record prima facie revealed a mala fide case, noting that the petitioner is a mature woman who was fully conscious of her act and conduct.
What the High Court had directed
The High Court set aside the settlement and made it unenforceable for the balance amount payable to the petitioner. It directed that the proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be taken forward, with appropriate action against her if she resiled from her consent before the Family Court, and imposed exemplary costs of Rs 5,00,000, to be paid to two entities, one established in the care of women and the other a fund for poor patients.
What the order signals
The order shows the Court’s concern that settlements reached under the pressure of pending criminal proceedings can turn the justice system into a means of extracting money. By confirming that the Rs 9.25 lakh settlement cannot be enforced, it signals that such arrangements may not be given the court’s seal.
At the same time, the Court softened the High Court’s approach on costs, treating the Rs 5 lakh penalty as unnecessary on the facts while still warning the petitioner. The observations rest on the record before the Bench; the underlying allegations were not adjudicated and no finding was returned on them.
Case Title: XYZ v. State of Haryana and Another [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 531 of 2026, arising out of CRM-M No. 58584 of 2025]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
Appearances: For the petitioner, Mr. Arpit Rai, Mr. Ankit Ahluwalia, Mr. Rohit Lohmod, Mr. Prabhsharan Singh Mohi, Advocates, and Mr. Aviral Kashyap, AOR; for the respondents, Mr. Anurag Kulharia, AOR, Mr. Gyaaneshwar Joshi, Ms. Shakshi Sharma, Mr. Manuj Aggarwal, Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR, and Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocates