Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Monday (24.08.2026) has quashed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) initiated by a wife and daughter against the husband. While quashing the proceedings, the Court held that once the wife had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, by a Settlement Agreement and a subsequent affidavit before the Family Court, “revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.”

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan ruled so while hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the 2018 Kerala High Court's judgment dismissing his plea seeking quashing of the complaint filed under the DV Act.

The appellant (husband) and respondent 1 (wife/R1) had entered into a Settlement Agreement in 2016, under which the wife specifically agreed not to make any monetary or maintenance claims against the husband. Pursuant to this, a joint application seeking divorce was filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, wherein a divorce decree was passed in 2017.

Subsequently, the wife (R1) and the daughter (respondent 2/R2) filed a complaint under the DV Act. Thereafter, the appellant sought the quashing of the complaint before the Kerala High Court. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition. Hence, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the proceedings under the DV Act had been initiated after the parties had already settled all disputes, and that his wife had specifically agreed under the Settlement Agreement not to make any monetary claims. It was also submitted that the respondents had reiterated claims that were extinguished upon execution of the Settlement Agreement. It was further submitted that the daughter had already received consideration in the form of two properties, which she had sold.

On the contrary, the respondents submitted that the Settlement Agreement had been executed under duress, as wife (R1) wanted a speedy divorce at that time in order to migrate to the United States. It was also argued that the absence of any provision for maintenance in the Settlement Agreement itself made coercion apparent, since a legally valid Settlement Agreement ought to provide for statutory maintenance to the wife, and that a Settlement Agreement waiving statutory and fundamental rights was void as against public policy. It was further contended that the daughter had not received any properties from the appellant, as the two properties referred to were already in her name.

Perusing the records, the Supreme Court noted that the wife had not merely executed the Settlement Agreement but had also filed an affidavit reiterating the waiver of claims before the Family Court.

The bench considered the Settlement Agreement which recorded as:

“It is agreed herein that based on the settlement arrived between us that we are not continuing with the O.P. (Div) No. 259 of 2015 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, today both of us are (23.07.2016) going to file a joint divorce petition and that all the monetary transactions between us have been come to an end based on this, 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 bench considered the affidavit filed by the wife before the Family Court, which recorded as:“6. It is submitted that all claims and liabilities between us have been settled. I have relinquished my claim for maintenance against the 2nd petitioner. Both of us have agreed that there will be no future claims or liabilities against each other or between us arising out of our marital relationship.7. This petition for divorce by mutual consent is filed by us out of our free, will, violation and desire to dissolve our marriage. There is no coercion or undue influence in filing this petition.”

Perusing the two, the bench observed that the complaint under the DV Act pertained to alleged acts predating the Settlement Agreement, and that no fresh cause of action arising post-divorce had been pleaded. The bench also noted that although the respondents sought to challenge the Settlement Agreement and the divorce decree on the ground of duress, the wife had not instituted any proceedings to set aside the decree or to seek a declaration invalidating the Settlement Agreement.

The Court held that, “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.”

The bench relied on Dhananjay Rathi v Ruchika Rathi, wherein the Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of initiating proceedings under the DV Act despite a valid compromise.

While allowing the appeal in respect of R1's (wife) claims, the Supreme Court carved out an exception for the daughter. It noted that the Settlement Agreement had been solely executed between the husband and the wife, and that the daughter (who had attained majority prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement) was not a party to it. The bench, accordingly, held that, “it cannot be said that respondent no 2 - daughter, had waived her right to monetary claims.”

In the light of above, the Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment and quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery. It also clarified that R2 (daughter) would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary reliefs against the appellant, and that any such proceedings would be decided on their own merits.

Case Title: Reji Baby v Subi Mary

Coram: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 854

Appearance:

For Appellant: Mr Ankur S Kulkarni, Adv.

For Respondents: Ms Shweta Garg, Adv.; Mr Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order




Tags: