By 
The Supreme Court recently quashed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), filed by a wife and daughter against the husband. The Court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an “abuse of process”.
The Court said that the wife had voluntarily given up all her monetary claims, including maintenance, through a Settlement Agreement and a later affidavit filed before the Family Court. Therefore, the Court held that the “revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.”
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan passed the ruling while hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the Kerala High Court’s judgment and order dated 26th October 2018. The High Court had earlier dismissed his plea seeking to quash the complaint filed under the DV Act.
Settlement Between Couple
The appellant husband and respondent No. 1, the wife (R1), had entered into a Settlement Agreement on 23rd July 2016. Under the agreement, the wife had specifically agreed not to make any monetary or maintenance claims against the husband.
Thereafter, the husband and R1 jointly filed an application under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. A decree of divorce was granted on 30th January 2017.
After the divorce proceedings, R1-wife and respondent No. 2, the daughter (R2), initiated proceedings under the DV Act.
The husband then approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the complaint. However, the High Court dismissed his petition. He subsequently filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Husband’s Arguments
Before the Supreme Court, the husband argued that the proceedings under the DV Act were filed after the parties had already settled their disputes through the Settlement Agreement.
He submitted that R1 had clearly agreed to give up all her monetary and maintenance claims against him. According to him, the respondents were now trying to raise claims that had already ended when the Settlement Agreement was signed.
The husband also submitted that the respondents had received consideration after the separation. According to him, R2-daughter had been given two properties, which she later sold.
Wife And Daughter’s Stand
The respondents admitted that R1 had agreed to give up her monetary claims against the husband. However, they argued that the Settlement Agreement had been signed under duress.
The respondents submitted that, at that time, they wanted the divorce proceedings to be completed quickly because they planned to migrate to the United States of America. Therefore, according to them, R1 agreed to the husband’s demands and gave up her monetary claims without any conditions.
The respondents further argued that the Settlement Agreement did not provide for any consideration or maintenance, which, according to them, showed that it was signed under coercion. They argued that a legally valid Settlement Agreement should provide the wife with statutory maintenance.
They also argued that a Settlement Agreement that results in giving up statutory and fundamental rights would be void as being against public policy.
Regarding R2, the respondents submitted that the daughter had not received any properties from the husband. They claimed that the two properties mentioned by the husband were already in the daughter’s name.
Court’s Findings
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court held that the proceedings under the DV Act amounted to an “abuse of process”.
The Court noted that R1 had voluntarily given up all her monetary claims, including maintenance. It held that the “revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.”
The Bench further noted that R1 had not only signed the Settlement Agreement but had also filed an affidavit dated 24th January 2017 before the Family Court, again confirming that she had given up her claims.
Settlement Terms
The Settlement Agreement stated:
“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 affidavit later filed by R1 before the Family Court stated:
“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.”
No New Cause
The Court noted that the respondents had not claimed that any new cause of action had arisen after the divorce.
It observed that the domestic violence complaint was based on alleged acts that had taken place before the Settlement Agreement was signed.
The Court also considered the respondents’ argument that the Settlement Agreement and divorce decree were obtained under duress. However, it noted that R1 had never filed any case seeking to set aside the divorce decree or to declare the Settlement Agreement invalid.
The Court held:
“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.”
Earlier Supreme Court Ruling
The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587. In that case, the Court had criticised the filing of proceedings under the DV Act despite the existence of a valid compromise.
While discussing the law on settlements, the Supreme Court referred to the following observation from Dhananjay Rathi:
“30. It is trite law that once the parties have entered into a settlement agreement which was duly authenticated by the mediator, in case of any resilement from such terms as agreed upon in the settlement, the resiling party must be encumbered with heavy costs. Any deviation from the terms of the settlement arrived in mediation and later confirmed by the Court should be dealt with strictly as such deviation harbors an attack to the foundational basis of the entire process of mediation. This Court in the case of Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, (2022) 11 SCC 705, while dealing with a compromise entered between the parties in case of cheque dishonour, held that the parties cannot be allowed to reverse the effect of a settlement agreement by pursuing either original or subsequent complaints. A three-Judge Bench of this Court therein emphasized that a settlement once entered and authenticated by a mediator subsumed the original complaint.”
The Court also referred to the relevant portion of Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel:
“41. When a complainant party enters into a compromise agreement with the accused, it may be for a multitude of reasons — higher compensation, faster recovery of money, uncertainty of trial and strength of the complaint, among others. A complainant enters into a settlement with open eyes and undertakes the risk of the accused failing to honour the cheques issued pursuant to the settlement, based on certain benefits that the settlement agreement postulates. Once parties have voluntarily entered into such an agreement and agree to abide by the consequences of non-compliance of the settlement agreement, they cannot be allowed to reverse the effects of the agreement by pursuing both the original complaint and the subsequent complaint arising from such non-compliance. The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint. Non-compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement or dishonour of cheques issued subsequent to it, would then give rise to a fresh cause of action attracting liability under Section 138 of the NI Act and other remedies under civil law and criminal law.
XXX
C.2. Liability arising from the settlement agreement
- Once a settlement agreement has been entered into between the parties, the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement and any violation of the same may result in consequential action in civil and criminal law.”
Daughter’s Claim Allowed
However, while allowing the appeal regarding R1-wife’s claims, the Supreme Court made an exception in the case of the daughter.
The Court noted that the Settlement Agreement had been signed only by the husband and R1-wife. R2-daughter, who had already become a major before the Settlement Agreement was signed, was not a party to the agreement.
Therefore, the Court held that “it cannot be said that respondents No. 2-daughter had waived her right to monetary claims.”
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Kerala High Court’s judgment and order dated 26th October 2018.
It also quashed the proceedings in M.C. 23/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery.
However, the Court clarified that R2-daughter would still be free to file fresh proceedings seeking monetary reliefs against the husband, if she wished to do so, in accordance with law.
The Court further directed that if she filed such proceedings, they would be decided in accordance with law.
Case Details: Reji Baby vs Subi Mary (Criminal Appeal No. 1346/2021)
