The Supreme Court has set aside a Kerala High Court judgment declining to quash a domestic violence complaint by an ex-wife and daughter on the grounds that revival of any monetary claims relinquished within a settlement agreement constitutes abuse of process.
The appeal was made following an order of the Kerala High Court, dated 26th October 2018, declining a petition of the husband (CRL. MC No. 8568/2017) quashing a complaint lodged under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), by the former wife and daughter.
The wife and husband had signed a Settlement Agreement on 23rd July 2016, wherein the wife consented to waive all further monetary/maintenance relief from the husband. The pair proceeded to file a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, and secured a decree of divorce dated 30th January 2017. In the Family Court, the wife further executed an affidavit, dated 24th January 2017, reiterating the waiver of all claims/liabilities and the waiver of her maintenance relief and that she had made the divorce petition in the absence of any duress.
The husband's counsel argued that the DV Act proceedings were aimed at restoring claims settled within a settlement and pointed to the fact that two properties were separately given to the daughter by the husband and later sold by her. Respondents' counsel argued that the settlement was entered into under duress, respondents' desire for a fast-track divorce, as they were planning to migrate to the United States, and a settlement unattended by consideration/maintenance was void as against public policy. Regarding properties, respondents contended these were already in the daughter's name and were not handed over by the husband.
The Bench opined that after the wife had given up her monetary relief voluntarily via the Settlement Agreement as well as the subsequent affidavit, resurrecting the monetary claims by fresh proceedings could not be countenanced. It further observed that no cause of action for after-the-divorce was pleaded by the respondents, and the wife had not filed any proceeding for setting aside the settlement agreement or the divorce decree; allegations of duress without any proceeding, it held, would not suffice. The Court referred to its recent ruling in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 587), which in turn cited Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel ((2022) 11 SCC 705), for the proposition that a settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint and it can not be reverted by resurrecting the original complaint.
However, the Court drew a distinction for the daughter (respondent No. 2), who had attained majority before the settlement was executed but was not herself a party to it. Her rights to monetary claims, the Court held, had not been waived.
The appeal was allowed. The Kerala High Court order was set aside and the DV Act proceedings (M.C. No. 23/2017, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery) quashed. The daughter, the Court observed, is at liberty to institute fresh proceedings for monetary relief from the appellant, if advised, to be determined in accordance with law.
Sources
Case Name: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021 (2026 INSC 918)
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, J. and Manmohan, J. (authored by Manmohan, J.)
Date: 24th August 2026