Case at a Glance
A couple settled all their disputes by a written agreement of 23 July 2016, in which the wife gave up maintenance and monetary claims, and then obtained a divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. Months later the wife and the couple’s adult daughter filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Kerala High Court refused to quash it. The Supreme Court allowed the husband’s appeal and quashed the DV proceedings as an abuse of process. It, however, held that the adult daughter, who was not a party to the settlement, had not waived her own claims and is free to file fresh proceedings.
The parties signed a Settlement Agreement on 23 July 2016 resolving all their disputes, including O.P. (Div) No. 259 of 2015 then pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. Under it, the wife agreed not to make monetary or maintenance claims; the agreement recorded that “the second party will not claim any maintenance allowance from the first party.” A joint petition for divorce was filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, and on 24 January 2017 the wife filed an affidavit before the Family Court stating: “I have relinquished my claim for maintenance against the 2nd petitioner.” The divorce decree followed on 30 January 2017.
The wife and the daughter then filed a complaint under the DV Act, registered as M.C. 23/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery. The husband sought quashing, saying the respondents had received consideration and that two properties had been given to the daughter. The respondents said the wife signed under duress because she wanted a quick divorce to migrate to the USA, that an agreement giving no maintenance was void as against public policy, and that the daughter received no property, the two properties already standing in her name. The Kerala High Court, by judgment dated 26 October 2018 in CRL. MC No. 8568/2017, declined to quash, and the husband appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a wife who gave up maintenance in a settlement and obtained a mutual-consent divorce revive those claims through a Domestic Violence Act complaint, and is the couple’s adult daughter, who did not sign the settlement, bound by that waiver?
How the Supreme Court Read the Settlement, the Affidavit and the Duress Plea
Writing for the Bench, Justice Manmohan held that “the proceedings under the DV Act constitute an abuse of process.” The record showed that the wife had signed the agreement and had then reaffirmed the waiver on affidavit before the Family Court. The Court found it significant that “the respondents have not pleaded any fresh cause of action arising post-divorce”; the complaint was about events before the settlement. Nor had the wife instituted any proceedings to set aside the divorce decree or to invalidate the agreement. On the duress plea, the Court said: “Mere averments of coercion, absent any legal challenge, cannot suffice,” adding that the parties were well educated and must be presumed to have acted voluntarily.
The Court relied on Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, (2026) 04 SC CK 0481, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587, which deprecated the launching of DV proceedings despite a valid compromise, and on the principle from Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, (2021) 10 SC CK 0039, (2022) 11 SCC 705, that “The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.” The daughter stood on a different footing. She was not a party to the agreement and had already attained majority before it was signed, so the Court held that it “cannot be said that respondents No. 2-daughter had waived her right to monetary claims.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The DV Act complaint (M.C. 23/2017, JFCM Court, Kalamassery) was an abuse of process and was quashed; the Kerala High Court’s order of 26 October 2018 was set aside.
- A wife who waived maintenance in a settlement and reaffirmed it on affidavit cannot revive waived claims through DV proceedings without a fresh post-divorce cause of action.
- Bare allegations of duress, without any legal challenge to the agreement or the divorce decree, are not enough to avoid the settlement.
- The adult daughter, not being a party to the settlement, did not waive her monetary claims and is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, to be decided in accordance with law.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It strengthens the finality of full-and-final matrimonial settlements recorded before Family Courts.
- It signals that DV complaints filed after a settled divorce must disclose a genuine fresh cause of action.
- It protects the independent rights of adult children who did not sign their parents’ settlement.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Spouses
- A waiver of maintenance in a settlement and on affidavit will be enforced unless the agreement or decree is legally challenged.
- If a settlement was signed under pressure, the remedy is a proper challenge to the agreement or decree, not a later DV complaint.
- Post-divorce acts of violence or harassment remain a separate, fresh cause of action.
For Counsel
- When seeking quashing, place the settlement deed, Family Court affidavit and decree on record together.
- Check whether the complaint pleads any act after the divorce; its absence was decisive here.
- Do not assume a settlement binds children or others who did not sign it.
Key Takeaways
- Settlement plus affidavit plus decree made the waiver hard to reopen.
- No fresh post-divorce cause of action meant the DV case could not continue.
- A duress plea needs a legal challenge, not just an allegation.
- The adult daughter’s separate claims survive and can be pursued afresh.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a wife file a DV case after waiving maintenance in a divorce settlement?
In this case the Supreme Court held such proceedings were an abuse of process because the wife had waived maintenance in the agreement and on affidavit, had not challenged the agreement or decree, and pleaded no fresh cause of action arising after the divorce.
Is a settlement void if it gives the wife no maintenance?
The respondents argued this, but the Court held that without any legal challenge to the agreement or decree, mere averments of coercion could not suffice, and it presumed that the well-educated parties acted voluntarily.
What happened to the daughter’s claim?
The Court held that the adult daughter was not a party to the settlement and had not waived her monetary claims, and gave her liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Conclusion
Reji Baby v. Subi Mary, (2026) 08 SC CK 0278 holds both sides of a settlement to their word: a wife who gave up maintenance and reaffirmed it before the Family Court cannot reopen the same ground through the DV Act, but a person who never signed the settlement keeps her own rights.
Practical takeaway: Draft and record matrimonial settlements carefully, and before filing or opposing a later DV case, check who signed the settlement and whether any fresh post-divorce cause of action exists.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com