Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021, 2026 INSC 918 (24 August 2026)
What the case was about
This appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a family dispute in Kerala that unexpectedly took a second legal life after a divorce. The appellant-husband and respondent-wife had formally ended their marriage through a mutual consent decree, having first signed a detailed settlement in which the wife expressly gave up all monetary and maintenance claims against him. Later, the wife and their adult daughter filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), citing alleged incidents that pre-dated the settlement. The husband sought to quash that complaint, arguing that the respondents were trying to resurrect claims they had already contractually extinguished. When the Kerala High Court refused to intervene, he approached the Supreme Court. The case ultimately turned on whether a voluntary, sworn waiver of financial claims made during divorce proceedings can be reopened through fresh DV Act proceedings, and whether an adult child who never signed the settlement can be stopped from asserting her own statutory rights.
The key facts
In July 2016, the appellant and respondent No. 1 executed a Settlement Agreement in which the wife agreed that she would not make any monetary or maintenance claims against the husband in the future (para 9). The couple then filed a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, and obtained a decree formally dissolving their marriage on 30 January 2017. Just days earlier, on 24 January 2017, respondent No. 1 had filed an affidavit before the Family Court reiterating that she had relinquished her claim for maintenance and stating that the joint petition was filed freely and without coercion or undue influence (para 9).
Despite these solemn undertakings, the respondents subsequently filed a complaint under the DV Act (M.C. 23/2017) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kalamassery, based on alleged incidents that predated the Settlement Agreement. The appellant promptly moved the High Court of Kerala to quash the complaint, but his petition was dismissed on 26 October 2018. Before the Supreme Court, the respondents argued that the Settlement Agreement was void as against public policy because it waived statutory maintenance rights. They also stressed that respondent No. 2, the daughter, had attained majority before the settlement was executed and was never a party to it.
The questions before the Court
The Court was asked to rule on three specific issues. First, did the DV Act proceedings amount to an abuse of process because the wife had already voluntarily relinquished her monetary claims? Second, was the Settlement Agreement void on the ground of public policy for waiving statutory maintenance rights? Third, was the adult daughter bound by an agreement she had not signed?
What the Court decided and why
A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and quashing the DV Act proceedings against the appellant, while carving out an important exception for the daughter.
On the wife’s claims, the Court held that the complaint was an “abuse of process” (para 8). It reasoned that once respondent No. 1 had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, through a duly executed Settlement Agreement, she could not be permitted to revive those same claims through subsequent proceedings (para 8). The Court placed significant weight on the affidavit she filed during the mutual consent divorce proceedings, in which she reaffirmed the waiver and expressly denied any coercion or undue influence (para 9). Addressing the respondents’ allegations of coercion, the Court further held that mere averments of coercion cannot suffice to revive extinguished claims when the wife has not taken any legal step to set aside either the settlement or the divorce decree. Observing that the parties were educated and cognizant of their rights, the Court treated the documents as consciously and voluntarily executed. It also rejected the submission that an agreement waiving statutory maintenance is inherently void against public policy, holding that a settlement voluntarily entered into by parties who understand their rights is not void merely for that reason, especially when the waiver is reinforced by a subsequent sworn affidavit and a mutual consent divorce decree.
The judgment reinforced this conclusion by citing a recent coordinate bench decision in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587, which deprecated the practice of initiating DV Act proceedings despite a valid compromise, noting that deviation from a confirmed settlement “harbors an attack to the foundational basis of the entire process of mediation” (para 13).
However, the Court drew a firm line regarding the daughter. It noted that the Settlement Agreement was executed solely between the husband and the wife (para 14). Because respondent No. 2 had already attained majority and was never a party to it, she could not be said to have waived her independent statutory right to seek monetary reliefs under the DV Act (para 14). Consequently, while the existing proceedings were quashed, the daughter was expressly granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for monetary reliefs in accordance with law (para 15).
Why it matters
The ruling reinforces an important principle of finality in family law: when spouses voluntarily settle their financial claims and solemnize that choice through sworn statements and a mutual consent decree, they cannot later reopen the same claims by recasting them as domestic violence complaints. By labeling such a maneuver an “abuse of process,” the Court signaled that litigants cannot use the DV Act to circumvent a bargain they freely struck. The decision also strengthens the sanctity of negotiated settlements by warning that deviations from confirmed agreements undermine the very foundation of consensual dispute resolution.
At the same time, the Court was careful not to let a marital bargain bind those who were not at the negotiating table. By holding that an adult child who was not a signatory retains an independent statutory right to seek monetary reliefs, the judgment balances respect for private settlements with the protective intent of the DV Act. For litigants, lawyers, and family courts across the country, the decision is a clear reminder that settlements must be honored by those who make them, but that statutory safeguards remain fully available to those who never agreed to give them up.