29 August 2026 Legal Updates

Case details

• Case: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Others
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s refusal to quash domestic-violence proceedings initiated after the parties had entered into a comprehensive divorce settlement. The Court held that a wife who voluntarily relinquishes monetary and maintenance claims through a settlement agreement and confirms that waiver before the Family Court cannot ordinarily revive the same claims through later proceedings under the DV Act.

Facts of the case

The appellant, Reji Baby, and respondent no. 1, Subi Mary, were married but subsequently began living separately. On 23 July 2016, they executed a written Settlement Agreement to resolve their matrimonial and financial disputes. The agreement recorded that:

• All monetary transactions between the parties had been settled;
• Neither party would make future monetary claims against the other; and
• The wife would not claim maintenance from the husband.

Thereafter, the parties filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. The wife also filed an affidavit before the Family Court stating that all claims and liabilities had been settled, that she had relinquished her maintenance claim, and that the divorce petition had been filed voluntarily without coercion or undue influence.

A decree of divorce was passed on 30 January 2017.

Subsequently, the wife and their daughter initiated proceedings under the DV Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery, seeking monetary reliefs for alleged domestic violence. The complaint related to acts alleged to have occurred before the settlement.

The husband approached the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the complaint. The High Court dismissed his petition on 26 October 2018. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the appellant-husband

The husband contended that:

• The parties had consciously and finally settled all matrimonial and monetary disputes.
• The wife had expressly waived maintenance and all future monetary claims in the Settlement Agreement.
• The waiver was subsequently reaffirmed in her affidavit before the Family Court.
• The parties had obtained divorce by mutual consent on the basis of that settlement.
• The DV Act proceedings merely sought to revive claims that had already been extinguished.
• The complaint did not disclose any fresh act of domestic violence after the settlement or divorce.
• The daughter had already received two properties as consideration, which she had subsequently sold.
• Continuation of the proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Contentions of the respondents The wife and daughter argued that:

• The Settlement Agreement had been executed under duress because the wife wanted an early divorce in order to migrate to the United States.
• The absence of a maintenance provision in the settlement indicated that the wife had been compelled to surrender her rights.
• Statutory and fundamental rights, including the right to maintenance, could not be waived in a manner contrary to public policy.
• The wife’s consent to the settlement and divorce was therefore not free and voluntary.
• The daughter had not received any property from the husband; the two properties relied upon by him were already in her name.
• The DV Act proceedings should therefore be permitted to continue.

Findings of the Supreme Court

1. The wife had voluntarily waived her monetary claims

The Court examined both the Settlement Agreement and the wife’s subsequent affidavit.

The agreement clearly stated that the parties would make no future monetary claims against each other and that the wife would not claim maintenance. The affidavit independently confirmed that all claims and liabilities had been settled and that the divorce petition had been filed without coercion or undue influence.

The Court therefore found that the waiver was not contained in a single isolated document; it had been consciously reiterated before the Family Court in the course of obtaining a mutual-consent divorce.

2. Mere allegations of coercion were insufficient

The respondents alleged that the settlement had been executed under duress. However, the wife had not instituted any proceeding:

• To set aside the Settlement Agreement;
• To obtain a declaration that it was void; or
• To challenge the decree of divorce on the ground of coercion or fraud.

The Supreme Court held that mere assertions of coercion, without a substantive legal challenge to the settlement or decree, could not invalidate documents that had been voluntarily executed and affirmed before a court.

The Court also noted that the parties were educated and aware of their legal rights. In these circumstances, they had to be treated as having consciously and voluntarily entered into the settlement.

3. The DV Act complaint sought to revive settled claims

The Court found that the allegations in the DV Act complaint related to a period before the Settlement Agreement. No fresh cause of action arising after the settlement or divorce had been pleaded.

Once the wife had voluntarily relinquished her monetary and maintenance claims and had obtained divorce on that basis, revival of the same claims through subsequent proceedings could not be permitted.

The Court treated the continuation of the proceedings against the wife’s claims as an abuse of process.

4. Settlement agreements must receive finality

The Court relied upon Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, in which it had deprecated the practice of initiating or continuing DV Act proceedings despite a valid compromise.

The principle is that a settlement which resolves the original dispute cannot be treated as merely provisional. Unless the settlement is legally set aside, a party cannot accept its benefits and subsequently pursue claims that were expressly abandoned.

5. The daughter was not bound by the wife’s waiver

The Supreme Court drew an important distinction between the wife and the daughter.

The Settlement Agreement had been executed only between the husband and the wife. The daughter, who had attained majority before the agreement was executed, was not a party to it and had not signed or adopted its terms.

Consequently, the daughter could not be treated as having waived her independent monetary claims. The Court preserved her liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the appellant, which would be examined on their own merits.

Final order The Supreme Court:

• Allowed the husband’s appeal;
• Set aside the Kerala High Court judgment dated 26 October 2018;
• Quashed proceedings in M.C. No. 23/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery, insofar as they related to the wife’s settled claims; and
• Permitted the daughter to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary relief, if otherwise maintainable in law.

Legal principles established

• A valid and voluntary settlement of matrimonial claims is binding on the parties.
• A wife who expressly waives maintenance and other monetary claims in a settlement cannot ordinarily revive those claims through later DV Act proceedings concerning pre-settlement conduct.
• A waiver becomes particularly significant when it is reaffirmed in an affidavit filed before the court during mutual-consent divorce proceedings.
• Mere allegations of coercion or duress do not invalidate a settlement. The party alleging coercion must seek appropriate legal relief to set aside the agreement or the decree founded upon it.
• A party cannot approbate and reprobate. A person cannot rely on a settlement to obtain divorce and thereafter disregard the same settlement to pursue claims already relinquished.
• The DV Act cannot be used to reopen disputes that have been finally and voluntarily settled, unless a fresh and legally sustainable cause of action is shown.
• The Court’s power to quash proceedings may be exercised where continuation would amount to abuse of process.
• Waiver is personal to the person who makes it. A parent’s settlement cannot automatically extinguish the independent rights of an adult daughter who was not a party to the agreement.
• A daughter’s independent claim must be examined separately. Her non-party status preserves her right to seek relief, subject to proof and all legal objections available to the respondent.
• The judgment does not hold that maintenance rights can never be claimed. It holds that a voluntary, unequivocal and court-confirmed relinquishment, if not legally challenged, cannot be casually reversed through subsequent proceedings.

Significance of the judgment

The decision strengthens the finality and enforceability of genuine matrimonial settlements. It discourages parties from accepting the advantages of a compromise and later reviving claims that were expressly abandoned.

At the same time, the judgment protects persons who were not parties to the settlement. The daughter’s independent right to seek monetary relief demonstrates that a settlement binds only those who voluntarily entered into it and cannot extinguish the separate legal rights of a non-signatory.