In Sh. Nikhil Kumar @ Nikhil Kr. Goswami & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (CRL.M.C. 8422/2026, decided 6 November 2026), Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav of the Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial FIR after the spouses settled their disputes through a mediated memorandum of understanding built around financial security — monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000, fixed deposits of Rs 5,00,000 for each of the two daughters, and transfer of a flat to the wife and daughters. What distinguishes the case from the ordinary run of settlement quashings is its ending: the parties did not part ways. They resumed cohabitation.
The case in one view
| Case | Sh. Nikhil Kumar @ Nikhil Kr. Goswami & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 8422/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav |
| Decided | 6 November 2026 |
| FIR | No. 515/2021, P.S. Jyoti Nagar, registered on a Section 156(3) CrPC order; chargesheet under Sections 498A/406/323/342/354/354A-C/506/509/34 IPC, Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 66E/67A IT Act |
| Outcome | FIR and proceedings quashed under Section 528 BNSS; parties kept bound by the MOU; daughters’ independent rights preserved |
From separation to settlement
The spouses had separated in September 2020, and the wife’s complaint — pursued through a Section 156(3) application — produced an FIR and eventually a chargesheet spanning cruelty, criminal breach of trust, offences against dignity and provisions of the Information Technology Act. Parallel proceedings accumulated, as they usually do: the wife’s complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act with an execution petition, and the husband’s divorce petition.
Mediation changed the trajectory. By an MOU dated 20 April 2026, the parties agreed on a financial architecture rather than a parting of ways: monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000; a fixed deposit of Rs 5,00,000 for each of the two daughters; and transfer of a flat to the wife and the daughters. The DV complaint and execution were withdrawn, the divorce petition was withdrawn — and the parties resumed cohabitation.
Why the Court quashed
Maintenance by design rather than by decree
The MOU is a textbook example of maintenance settled by design. Instead of litigating quantum under Section 144 BNSS or the DV Act — with its affidavits of income, disputed lifestyles and appeals — the parties fixed a monthly figure, secured the children through deposits, and shifted a capital asset to the wife and daughters. Each element answers a different risk: the monthly payment addresses recurring needs, the fixed deposits insulate the children from future conflict, and the flat transfer gives the wife security that no default can easily unwind.
The wider pattern
Delhi’s matrimonial docket shows a steady line of settlement quashings, but most involve marriages that have ended — a mutual consent divorce followed by closure of the criminal case. This decision sits in the rarer and more encouraging category: mediation used not to administer the estate of a dead marriage but to rebuild a living one, with the criminal process withdrawn so that the household can function. For practitioners, it underlines that the mediation brief in a matrimonial matter should always price both futures — separation and reconciliation — and that a well-drafted MOU can carry either.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can maintenance be fixed by agreement instead of a court order?
Yes. Parties routinely settle maintenance through a mediated MOU specifying monthly payments, lump sums or asset transfers. Once recorded before a court, the settlement binds the parties, and in this case the High Court expressly kept the parties bound by the MOU while quashing the FIR.
Were the daughters' rights affected by the settlement?
No. The Court preserved the independent rights of the minor daughters. The MOU in fact worked in their favour — fixed deposits of Rs 5 lakh each and a flat transferred to the wife and daughters — but a parental settlement cannot bargain away what the children are independently entitled to claim.
Can offences under the IT Act and modesty provisions be quashed on settlement?
The chargesheet included Sections 354 to 354C and 509 IPC and Sections 66E and 67A of the IT Act. The Court reasoned that all allegations arose from the same matrimonial discord, the complainant herself sought closure, the prosecution rested largely on her testimony making conviction remote, and continuation would harm the minor daughters — so the quashing extended to those offences too.
Does withdrawal of the DV case end maintenance claims?
Withdrawal pursuant to a settlement ends the pending proceedings, but the financial terms of the MOU take their place. If the agreed maintenance is not paid, the MOU itself — recorded before the court — becomes the foundation for enforcement.