The Supreme Court of India has held that where a wife has voluntarily relinquished her monetary and maintenance claims under a settlement agreement and subsequently reaffirmed that waiver before the Family Court while obtaining a divorce by mutual consent, she cannot revive the same claims through subsequent proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan clarified that settlement between husband and wife cannot extinguish the independent monetary rights of an adult daughter who was not a party to the settlement agreement.
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Kerala High Court dated October 26, 2018, which had dismissed the appellant-husband’s petition seeking quashing of a complaint instituted by the respondents under the Domestic Violence Act.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The husband challenged the continuation of the proceedings on the ground that the matrimonial disputes had already been settled through a Settlement Agreement dated July 23, 2016. Under the agreement, the wife had agreed not to raise any monetary or maintenance claim against him in the future.
Following the settlement, the husband and wife jointly approached the Family Court under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, and obtained a decree of divorce on January 30, 2017.
The husband’s case before the Supreme Court was that the subsequent Domestic Violence Act proceedings merely sought to reopen claims which had already been extinguished by the settlement.
The husband relied upon the express terms of the settlement, under which both parties had agreed that all monetary transactions between them had come to an end and that neither would make monetary claims against the other in the future.
The wife did not dispute that she had agreed to relinquish her monetary claims. Instead, the respondents argued that the settlement had been entered into under duress.
According to the respondents, the wife had agreed to the terms because she wanted the divorce proceedings to conclude quickly in view of the family’s proposed migration to the United States. It was therefore contended that the waiver of monetary claims could not be treated as a voluntary relinquishment of statutory rights.
The respondents further argued that a settlement which resulted in the waiver of statutory maintenance rights should be treated as being contrary to public policy.
Rejecting the attempt to revive the wife’s previously relinquished claims, the Supreme Court held that the Domestic Violence Act proceedings, insofar as they related to the wife’s waived monetary claims, constituted an abuse of process.
The Court noted that the wife had not merely signed the Settlement Agreement. She had subsequently filed an affidavit before the Family Court on January 24, 2017, expressly reiterating that her claims and liabilities with the husband had been settled and that she had relinquished her maintenance claim.
The affidavit also recorded that both parties had agreed that there would be no future claims or liabilities arising out of their marital relationship.
The Settlement Agreement itself recorded that the parties had agreed to bring their monetary transactions to an end and that the wife would not claim maintenance from the husband.
A crucial factor for the Court was that the respondents had not pleaded any fresh cause of action arising after the divorce.
The allegations forming the basis of the Domestic Violence Act complaint related to alleged acts which had taken place before the Settlement Agreement.
The Court also noted that although the respondents sought to challenge the settlement and divorce decree on the basis of alleged duress, the wife had not instituted proceedings seeking to set aside the divorce decree or obtain a declaration that the Settlement Agreement was invalid.
The Court held that mere allegations of coercion, without a corresponding legal challenge to the settlement or decree, were insufficient. It observed that the parties were well educated and aware of their rights and, in the circumstances, had consciously and voluntarily executed the settlement and joint divorce petition.
The Supreme Court also relied upon its recent decision in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587, where the Court had deprecated the practice of initiating proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act despite the existence of a valid compromise.
The Court reiterated the broader principle that once parties voluntarily enter into a duly authenticated settlement, they are ordinarily bound by its terms. A party cannot simply resile from the settlement and revive the original dispute through another proceeding.
The judgment referred to the principle that a settlement agreement can subsume the original complaint and that violation of a settlement may instead give rise to appropriate consequential remedies.
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, (2022) 11 SCC 705, in support of the proposition that parties who voluntarily enter into a settlement cannot ordinarily reverse its effect by pursuing both the original dispute and subsequent proceedings arising from non-compliance.
The Supreme Court, however, made an important distinction concerning the daughter.
The Court found that the Settlement Agreement had been executed only between the husband and wife. The daughter, who had already attained majority before the settlement was executed, was not a party to the agreement.
Consequently, the Court held that the daughter’s independent monetary claims could not be treated as having been waived merely because her mother had entered into a settlement with the husband.
This distinction is central to the judgment: a parent cannot, through a personal settlement, automatically extinguish the independent legal rights of an adult child who was not a party to that settlement.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s October 26, 2018 judgment and order.
The Court consequently quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery.
At the same time, the Court expressly preserved the daughter’s right to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary relief against the appellant, if she so chooses and in accordance with law.
The Court clarified that any such proceedings would have to be independently considered and decided in accordance with law.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
