The Supreme Court of India, comprising a Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan, has held that a wife who voluntarily relinquishes her monetary claims and maintenance rights under a settlement agreement cannot subsequently revive those claims by initiating proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). Allowing the husband’s appeal, the apex court set aside an order of the Kerala High Court and quashed domestic violence proceedings against him, while clarifying that a major daughter who was not a party to the settlement remains free to seek monetary relief independently.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a marital dispute between the appellant-husband, Reji Baby, and respondent No. 1-wife, Subi Mary. On July 23, 2016, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement in which the wife agreed to relinquish all future monetary and maintenance claims against the husband. Subsequently, they filed a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, and were granted a decree of divorce on January 30, 2017. Prior to the decree, on January 24, 2017, the wife filed an affidavit before the Family Court re-affirming that all claims were settled without any coercion or undue influence.
Despite the compromise, the wife and their daughter (respondent No. 2) filed a complaint under the DV Act (M.C. No. 23/2017) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery, seeking monetary reliefs for alleged acts predating the Settlement Agreement. The husband petitioned the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash the complaint, but the High Court dismissed his petition on October 26, 2018 (CRL. MC No. 8568/2017), leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that the respondents were re-agitating claims that had been fully extinguished upon the execution of the Settlement Agreement and the grant of the divorce decree. It was also submitted that the daughter had been given two properties, which she subsequently sold.
Counsel for the respondents acknowledged that the wife had agreed to forego monetary claims, but contended that the Settlement Agreement was executed under duress. It was argued that the respondents needed a speedy disposal of divorce proceedings to migrate to the United States of America, forcing the wife to accept the demands. Counsel further argued that a settlement agreement waiving statutory maintenance without consideration is void as against public policy, and clarified that the two properties mentioned were already registered in the daughter’s name.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that initiating proceedings under the DV Act after voluntarily relinquishing claims constitutes an abuse of the process of law. The Court noted that the wife had not only executed the Settlement Agreement but had also submitted a sworn affidavit before the Family Court explicitly confirming her voluntary waiver.
The Bench highlighted that no fresh cause of action arising post-divorce had been pleaded, and the domestic violence complaint related solely to alleged incidents predating the compromise. Furthermore, the wife had taken no formal legal steps to challenge the divorce decree or seek a declaration invalidating the Settlement Agreement. The Court held that mere assertions of coercion, without any legal challenge, are insufficient, as educated parties conscious of their rights must be held to their voluntary agreements.
Highlighting the binding nature of compromise agreements, the Bench referred to its recent decision in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 587), quoting:
“It is trite law that once the parties have entered into a settlement agreement which was duly authenticated by the mediator, in case of any resilement from such terms as agreed upon in the settlement, the resiling party must be encumbered with heavy costs. Any deviation from the terms of the settlement arrived in mediation and later confirmed by the Court should be dealt with strictly as such deviation harbors an attack to the foundational basis of the entire process of mediation.”
The judgment also referenced the three-Judge Bench decision in Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel ((2022) 11 SCC 705), cited in Dhananjay Rathi, which held:
“When a complainant party enters into a compromise agreement with the accused, it may be for a multitude of reasons higher compensation, faster recovery of money, uncertainty of trial and strength of the complaint, among others. A complainant enters into a settlement with open eyes and undertakes the risk of the accused failing to honour the cheques issued pursuant to the settlement, based on certain benefits that the settlement agreement postulates. Once parties have voluntarily entered into such an agreement and agree to abide by the consequences of non-compliance of the settlement agreement, they cannot be allowed to reverse the effects of the agreement by pursuing both the original complaint and the subsequent complaint arising from such non-compliance. The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.”
Applying these legal principles, the Court held that the wife could not revive her claims. However, the Bench distinguished the case of respondent No. 2 (the daughter), noting that she had attained majority prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement and was not a party to it. Consequently, she could not be said to have waived her right to monetary claims.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Kerala High Court judgment dated October 26, 2018, and quashed the proceedings in M.C. No. 23/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery.
The Court clarified that respondent No. 2 (the daughter) remains at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary reliefs against the appellant in accordance with law.
Case Title: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Manmohan
|Date: August 24, 2026
