Facts
The appellant-husband challenged the Kerala High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife had entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 23 July 2016, relinquishing monetary and maintenance claims, and thereafter obtained a mutual-consent divorce on 30 January 2017. She subsequently initiated DV Act proceedings concerning acts predating the settlement. The daughter, who was a major before the settlement, was not a party to it.
Issues Framed
The questions considered were whether the wife could revive claims relinquished under the Settlement Agreement through proceedings under the DV Act, and whether the settlement also extinguished the daughter’s monetary claims.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Wife’s relinquishment: The Court held that the proceedings under the DV Act constituted an abuse of process. The wife had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, under the Settlement Agreement and subsequently reaffirmed the waiver by affidavit before the Family Court. (Paras 8–9)
(b) Absence of fresh cause of action: The domestic violence complaint related to alleged acts predating the Settlement Agreement. The wife had not instituted proceedings to set aside the divorce decree or invalidate the Settlement Agreement. Mere averments of coercion, without a legal challenge to the agreement, were insufficient. (Paras 10–12)
(c) Daughter’s independent rights: The Court distinguished the daughter’s position because she was not a party to the Settlement Agreement. Since she had attained majority before its execution, she could not be treated as having waived her monetary claims. (Para 14)
Held
The appeal was allowed. The Kerala High Court’s order was set aside and proceedings in M.C. 23/2017 were quashed. The daughter was expressly left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for monetary reliefs against the appellant in accordance with law.
Conclusion
A voluntary settlement extinguishes the wife’s relinquished monetary claims arising from the pre-settlement period, but cannot extinguish the independent monetary claims of a daughter who was not a party to the settlement.
Relevant Para
8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the proceedings under the DV Act constitute an abuse of process. Once the respondent No.1-wife had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 918
Decided on: 24 August 2026
Case Title: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sandeep Mehta J.; Manmohan J.