Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that a spouse who has voluntarily relinquished monetary and maintenance claims through a valid settlement agreement and has subsequently reaffirmed such waiver before the Family Court cannot later revive the same claims through proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”).

The Supreme Court, in Reji Baby v. Subi Mary, quashed the DV Act proceedings initiated by the wife after observing that the parties had already settled their financial claims as part of their divorce settlement. However, the Court carved out an important exception in favour of the daughter, holding that she was not bound by the settlement because she was not a party to it.

A Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan delivered the ruling on August 24, 2026.

 

Background of the Case

The appellant-husband and Respondent No. 1, his wife, entered into a Settlement Agreement in 2016 to resolve disputes arising out of their marital relationship. Under the terms of the settlement, the wife specifically agreed that she would not make any future monetary or maintenance claims against the husband.

Following the settlement, the parties jointly sought divorce under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. A decree of divorce was subsequently granted in 2017.

The settlement clearly recorded that all monetary transactions between the parties had come to an end and that neither party would make any future monetary claim against the other. It further specifically provided that the wife would not claim maintenance from the husband.

Importantly, the wife also filed an affidavit before the Family Court affirming that all claims and liabilities between the parties had been settled. She expressly stated that she had relinquished her claim for maintenance and that there would be no future claims or liabilities arising out of the marital relationship. The affidavit further affirmed that the joint divorce petition had been filed voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence.

Subsequent Proceedings Under the DV Act

Despite the settlement and the subsequent divorce decree, the wife and daughter later initiated proceedings against the husband under the DV Act.

The husband approached the Kerala High Court seeking quashing of the complaint. However, the High Court dismissed his petition, leading him to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the husband argued that the proceedings under the DV Act amounted to an attempt to revive claims that had already been voluntarily settled and expressly waived by the wife.

He further contended that the claims raised in the DV proceedings related to alleged acts that had occurred before the execution of the Settlement Agreement and that no fresh cause of action arising after the divorce had been pleaded.

 

Arguments of the Parties

The husband submitted that the Settlement Agreement was voluntarily executed and that the wife had subsequently reaffirmed the waiver of her claims through an affidavit before the Family Court. Therefore, allowing her to claim monetary relief through subsequent DV proceedings would effectively permit the revival of claims that had already been extinguished.

The respondents, however, contended that the Settlement Agreement had been executed under duress. According to the wife, she wanted to obtain a speedy divorce in order to migrate to the United States and was therefore compelled to agree to the terms of the settlement.

It was further argued that the absence of provisions for maintenance in the Settlement Agreement itself indicated coercion. The respondents also contended that an agreement waiving statutory and fundamental rights would be contrary to public policy and therefore invalid.

Regarding the daughter, it was argued that she had not received the properties allegedly referred to by the husband as consideration for settlement.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After examining the record, the Supreme Court noted that the wife had not merely signed the Settlement Agreement but had also independently affirmed before the Family Court that she had voluntarily relinquished her maintenance claims.

The Court found it significant that the affidavit specifically stated that all claims and liabilities between the parties had been settled and that the divorce petition had been filed without coercion or undue influence.

The Bench further observed that the complaint under the DV Act related to allegations predating the Settlement Agreement. No new or independent cause of action arising after the divorce had been pleaded.

The Supreme Court also noted that although the respondents alleged that the settlement had been obtained under duress, the wife had never initiated any legal proceedings seeking to set aside the divorce decree or to have the Settlement Agreement declared invalid.

The Court held:

“Mere averments of coercion, absent any legal challenge, cannot suffice. The parties, being well educated and cognizant of their rights, must be deemed to have consciously and voluntarily executed the Settlement Agreement and joint divorce petition.”

Thus, the Court concluded that a party cannot voluntarily enter into a settlement, expressly waive monetary claims, reaffirm the waiver before a competent court and subsequently attempt to revive the same claims through fresh proceedings.

 

Reliance on Earlier Precedent

The Bench relied on Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, in which the Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of initiating proceedings under the DV Act despite the existence of a valid compromise between the parties.

The ruling reinforces the principle that settlements voluntarily entered into by legally competent parties must be respected unless they are legally challenged and set aside in accordance with law.

Exception in Favour of the daughter

While quashing the proceedings in relation to the wife’s claims, the Supreme Court made an important distinction regarding the daughter.

The Court observed that the Settlement Agreement had been executed only between the husband and the wife. The daughter, who had already attained majority before the execution of the settlement, was not a party to the agreement.

Therefore, the Bench held that the daughter’s rights could not automatically be treated as waived merely because the mother had entered into a settlement with the husband.

The Court observed:

“It cannot be said that respondent no. 2 – daughter, had waived her right to monetary claims.”

Accordingly, while the existing proceedings were quashed, the daughter was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary relief against the appellant. Any such claim would have to be considered independently and decided on its own merits.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court and quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery, insofar as they sought to revive the wife’s monetary claims that had already been settled and voluntarily waived.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the daughter remained free to pursue an independent claim for monetary relief, subject to the merits and applicable law.

 

Key Takeaways

The judgment lays down several important principles:

• A voluntary settlement agreement resolving monetary and maintenance claims carries significant legal effect.
• A spouse who has expressly waived maintenance and monetary claims cannot ordinarily revive the same claims through subsequent proceedings under the DV Act.
• A subsequent affidavit before the Family Court reaffirming the settlement strengthens the conclusion that the waiver was voluntary.
• Mere allegations of coercion or duress are insufficient when the settlement has not been legally challenged or set aside.
• Proceedings under the DV Act cannot be used to reopen claims arising from events that occurred before a valid and comprehensive settlement.
• A settlement between spouses does not automatically extinguish the independent legal rights of a child who was not a party to the settlement.

 

Legal Significance of the Judgment

The judgment is significant because it does not suggest that rights available under the DV Act can be waived in every circumstance through a private agreement. Rather, the Supreme Court examined the specific facts of the case, including the comprehensive nature of the settlement, the wife’s express waiver of maintenance claims, her subsequent affidavit before the Family Court and the absence of any legal proceedings challenging the validity of the settlement or divorce decree. The ruling therefore emphasises that where parties voluntarily and consciously resolve their disputes and formally place such settlement before a competent court, previously settled claims cannot ordinarily be reopened merely by instituting subsequent proceedings based on the same cause of action.

 

Finality of Matrimonial Settlements

The decision also reinforces the importance of certainty and finality in matrimonial dispute resolution. Settlement agreements play a crucial role in bringing an end to prolonged disputes between spouses. If a party is permitted to revive claims that were expressly settled and relinquished, without challenging the settlement itself, it would undermine the very purpose of mutual settlements and consent-based divorce proceedings. However, the Supreme Court simultaneously ensured that the principle of finality does not prejudice independent rights of third parties, as demonstrated by its decision to preserve the daughter’s right to independently seek appropriate monetary relief in accordance with law.

 

Conclusion

The decision in Reji Baby v. Subi Mary highlights the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the finality and enforceability of voluntary matrimonial settlements. The ruling makes it clear that a spouse cannot consciously waive monetary claims as part of a settlement and later seek to revive the same claims through proceedings under the DV Act without first challenging the validity of the settlement itself.

At the same time, the Supreme Court carefully protected the independent rights of the daughter by holding that she could not be bound by an agreement to which she was not a party.

The judgment therefore strikes a balance between two important principles: respecting the finality of voluntary settlements and protecting the independent legal rights of persons who have not consented to such settlements.