The Supreme Court has held that a wife who voluntarily relinquished her monetary and maintenance claims through a settlement agreement cannot later revive those claims through proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan delivered the judgment on August 24, 2026, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021.
The Court, however, made an important distinction regarding the adult daughter, who had never been a party to the settlement agreement.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a Kerala High Court order dated October 26, 2018, which had refused to quash proceedings initiated under the Domestic Violence Act.
The appellant-husband argued that the dispute between him and his wife had already been settled through an agreement dated July 23, 2016. Under that agreement, the wife had agreed that neither party would make future monetary claims against the other and specifically waived her claim for maintenance. The couple subsequently obtained a divorce decree on January 30, 2017.
The respondents, however, argued that the settlement had been entered into under duress because the wife wanted the divorce proceedings to conclude quickly before the family migrated to the United States.
Supreme Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court relied on both the settlement agreement and a subsequent affidavit filed by the wife before the Family Court.
The settlement expressly recorded:
“both of us will not make any monetary claim in future against each other, the second party will not claim any maintenance allowance from the first party.”
The Court also noted that the wife had later affirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that there had been no coercion or undue influence.
The Bench further observed that the domestic violence complaint concerned alleged acts that had occurred before the settlement and that the respondents had not pleaded any fresh cause of action after the divorce. The wife had also not initiated separate proceedings to have either the settlement agreement or divorce decree declared invalid.
The Court therefore held:
“Once the respondent No.1-wife had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.”
Daughter’s Independent Claim
The Supreme Court nevertheless drew a clear distinction concerning the daughter.
It noted that the settlement agreement had been executed only between the husband and wife. The daughter, who had already attained majority before the agreement was executed, was not a party to it.
Consequently, the Court held that the daughter could not be treated as having waived her own monetary claims through an agreement to which she was not a party.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Kerala High Court’s October 26, 2018 order. It quashed the proceedings in M.C. No. 23/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the daughter remained free to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary relief against the appellant, if advised, and that any such proceedings would be decided in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021
Judges: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan
Decision Date: August 24, 2026
-300x169.webp)
