2026 INSC 918
Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors.
Supreme Court of India — Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021
Judgment dated: 24 August 2026
Bench: Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan, JJ.
I. HEAD NOTES
1. Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 after settlement of matrimonial disputes — Para 8
The appellant-husband challenged the continuation of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), contending that the matrimonial disputes had already been settled by a written Settlement Agreement dated 23.07.2016, followed by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 30.01.2017.
The Supreme Court held that, insofar as respondent No.1-wife was concerned, revival of monetary and maintenance claims which she had voluntarily relinquished under the settlement constituted an abuse of process.
2. Express waiver of monetary and maintenance claims — Paras 9–12
The wife had not merely executed the Settlement Agreement but had subsequently filed an affidavit dated 24.01.2017 before the Family Court expressly reiterating that:
all claims and liabilities between the parties had been settled;
she had relinquished her maintenance claim;
there would be no future claims or liabilities arising from the marital relationship; and
the mutual-consent divorce petition was filed voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence.
The Supreme Court treated these documents as material evidence of voluntary relinquishment.
3. Allegation of duress without legal challenge to settlement or decree — Paras 11–12
The respondents alleged that the Settlement Agreement had been executed under duress.
However, the wife had not instituted proceedings to set aside the divorce decree or to obtain a declaration invalidating the Settlement Agreement.
The Supreme Court held that a mere allegation of coercion, without pursuing the appropriate legal remedy to invalidate the settlement or decree, was insufficient in the circumstances of the case.
4. Absence of fresh cause of action after divorce — Para 10
The Supreme Court noted that the respondents had not pleaded any fresh cause of action arising after the divorce.
The allegations in the domestic violence complaint related to acts said to have occurred before the Settlement Agreement.
This circumstance was material to the Court's conclusion concerning revival of the wife's previously relinquished claims.
5. Settlement agreement and binding effect — Para 13
The Supreme Court relied upon the recent decision in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587, and the principle stated therein that parties who voluntarily enter into an authenticated settlement are bound by its terms.
The Court also referred to Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, (2022) 11 SCC 705, where it was held that parties who voluntarily settle a dispute cannot subsequently reverse the effect of the settlement by pursuing the original complaint and a subsequent complaint founded upon non-compliance with the settlement.
6. Daughter's independent rights — Para 14
A significant distinction was drawn between the wife and the daughter.
The Settlement Agreement was executed only between the appellant-husband and respondent No.1-wife.
Respondent No.2-daughter had already attained majority before execution of the Settlement Agreement and was not a party to it.
Consequently, the daughter could not be treated as having waived her own monetary claims by virtue of an agreement to which she was not a party.
7. Quashing of proceedings — Para 15
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Kerala High Court judgment dated 26.10.2018, and quashed M.C. No.23/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery.
However, respondent No.2-daughter was expressly left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary reliefs against the appellant, in accordance with law.
II. FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASE
1. Original proceedings — Para 1
The appellant-husband approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court judgment dated 26.10.2018 in Crl. M.C. No.8568/2017.
The High Court had declined to quash the complaint filed by the respondents under the DV Act.
The Supreme Court was therefore concerned with the maintainability and continuation of the DV proceedings in the factual circumstances arising after the matrimonial settlement and divorce.
2. Settlement Agreement dated 23.07.2016 — Paras 2, 9
The appellant and respondent No.1-wife entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 23.07.2016.
According to the appellant, the material term of the settlement was that the wife would make no monetary or maintenance claim against him in future.
The Settlement Agreement also recorded that all monetary transactions between the parties had come to an end and that neither party would make future monetary claims against the other.
The Court reproduced the relevant clause in para 9.
3. Joint divorce proceedings and decree — Para 2
Following the settlement, the appellant and respondent No.1-wife filed a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869.
A decree of divorce by mutual consent was subsequently passed on 30.01.2017.
Thus, the Settlement Agreement preceded and formed part of the circumstances leading to dissolution of the marriage.
4. Affidavit dated 24.01.2017 — Para 9
The wife subsequently filed an affidavit before the Family Court.
The affidavit expressly stated that:
all claims and liabilities between the parties had been settled;
she had relinquished her claim for maintenance;
there would be no future claims or liabilities arising from the marital relationship; and
the divorce petition was filed out of her free will and desire;
there was no coercion or undue influence.
This affidavit was particularly material because it was executed after the Settlement Agreement and in the course of the divorce proceedings.
5. Alleged duress — Paras 5–6
The respondents did not dispute that the wife had agreed to relinquish monetary claims.
Their case was that the agreement had been executed under duress.
The explanation offered was that the respondents desired an expeditious conclusion of the divorce proceedings because they intended to migrate to the United States of America.
The respondents therefore contended that the wife's relinquishment was not voluntary.
6. Consideration and properties — Paras 4 and 7
The appellant contended that the respondents had received consideration following the separation and specifically relied upon two properties allegedly given to respondent No.2-daughter, which had subsequently been sold.
The respondents disputed this factual assertion and contended that the properties were already standing in the daughter's name.
The Supreme Court's ultimate decision, however, turned upon the legal effect of the Settlement Agreement and the separate position of the daughter as a non-party to that agreement.
III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Appellant-husband — Paras 2–4
The appellant contended that:
the matrimonial disputes had been settled on 23.07.2016;
the wife had expressly relinquished monetary and maintenance claims;
the parties thereafter obtained divorce by mutual consent;
the subsequent DV proceedings sought to revive claims already settled; and
the continuation of such proceedings amounted to abuse of process.
B. Respondents — Paras 5–7
The respondents accepted that the wife had agreed to forego monetary claims but contended that:
the settlement had been executed under duress;
the wife's surrender of maintenance was motivated by the desire for speedy divorce;
the settlement was contrary to public policy because it purported to waive statutory and fundamental rights; and
the daughter had not received the properties relied upon by the appellant.
IV. LAW APPLIED AND DISCUSSED
1. Effect of voluntary settlement — Paras 8–9
The Supreme Court examined the Settlement Agreement together with the wife's subsequent affidavit.
The Court found that the wife's relinquishment was not merely contained in a private settlement document.
It was subsequently reaffirmed before the Family Court in an affidavit expressly stating that there was no coercion or undue influence.
This subsequent affirmation materially supported the conclusion that the relinquishment had been voluntarily undertaken.
2. Abuse of process — Para 8
The Supreme Court held that, once respondent No.1-wife had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, subsequent proceedings seeking revival of those claims could not be permitted.
The Court consequently characterised continuation of the proceedings, insofar as the wife's settled claims were concerned, as an abuse of process.
3. Challenge to settlement and divorce decree — Paras 11–12
The respondents sought to rely upon alleged duress.
However, the wife had not instituted proceedings:
to set aside the divorce decree; or
to obtain a declaration that the Settlement Agreement was invalid.
The Court therefore held that mere assertions of coercion, without an appropriate legal challenge, could not by themselves displace the settlement and subsequent divorce proceedings.
4. Binding effect of settlement — Para 13
The Court referred to Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi.
The principle relied upon is that where parties have voluntarily entered into a settlement which has been duly authenticated and thereafter confirmed by the Court, the parties are bound by its terms.
The Court also relied upon Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, where a three-Judge Bench held that a settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint and that the parties cannot reverse the effect of the settlement by pursuing both the original complaint and subsequent proceedings arising from the settlement.
The Court thus applied the principle of finality and binding character of a voluntarily entered settlement.
5. Separate legal position of a non-party to settlement — Para 14
The Court did not apply the settlement against the daughter merely because she was the child of the parties.
The Settlement Agreement was solely between:
appellant-husband ↔ respondent No.1-wife.
Respondent No.2-daughter was not a party.
Therefore, the mother's waiver could not operate as a waiver of the daughter's independent monetary rights.
This is an important limitation upon the application of the settlement.
V. FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. Wife's waiver was voluntary — Paras 8–12
The Settlement Agreement and subsequent affidavit demonstrated voluntary relinquishment of monetary and maintenance claims.
2. No fresh cause of action after divorce was pleaded — Para 10
The complaint concerned alleged acts predating the Settlement Agreement.
3. Alleged duress had not been pursued through an appropriate legal challenge — Paras 11–12
The wife had not sought to set aside the divorce decree or obtain a declaration invalidating the settlement.
4. Revival of the wife's settled monetary claims was impermissible — Para 8
The Court treated continuation of the proceedings in respect of those claims as an abuse of process.
5. The settlement was binding upon the parties to it — Para 13
The wife, having voluntarily entered into the settlement, could not revive claims expressly relinquished thereunder through subsequent proceedings.
6. The daughter's rights were unaffected by the mother's settlement — Para 14
The daughter was not a party to the Settlement Agreement and therefore could not be treated as having waived her independent monetary claims.
VI. CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The judgment and order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Kerala High Court in Crl. M.C. No.8568/2017 were set aside.
The proceedings in M.C. No.23/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery, were quashed.
At the same time, the Supreme Court expressly preserved the daughter's independent legal position.
Since respondent No.2-daughter was not a party to the Settlement Agreement, she was left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary reliefs against the appellant, subject to law.
Thus, the settlement was given effect to against the wife who had executed it and expressly reaffirmed her waiver, but it was not extended to the adult daughter who was not a party to the settlement.
Core legal proposition
A voluntary settlement between spouses, expressly relinquishing monetary and maintenance claims and subsequently reaffirmed in proceedings for mutual-consent divorce, cannot ordinarily be circumvented by reviving the very claims which were consciously surrendered, particularly where no legal proceeding has been instituted to invalidate the settlement or the decree founded upon it. However, such settlement cannot operate as a waiver of the independent monetary rights of a person who was not a party to the settlement.
No comments:
Post a Comment