Matrimonial settlements are meant to close disputes, not to open a second front. In Reji Baby v. Subi Mary, 2026 INSC 918, decided on 24 August 2026, a bench of Justices Manmohan and Sandeep Mehta considered whether a wife who had expressly waived all monetary and maintenance claims in a settlement agreement, and then obtained a mutual consent divorce, could later pursue monetary reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court held she could not — but drew a careful line in favour of the couple's daughter, who had signed nothing.
The background
The husband and wife executed a settlement agreement on 23 July 2016, under which the wife expressly waived all monetary and maintenance claims against the husband. Acting on that settlement, the parties filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, and a decree followed on 30 January 2017. Some time later, the wife — joined by the couple's daughter — filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in respect of alleged acts that predated the settlement, seeking, among other things, monetary reliefs.
The husband moved the High Court of Kerala to quash the DV proceedings, arguing that the claims stood settled and waived. The High Court declined in 2018, and the husband carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021.
What the Supreme Court held
The proceedings were accordingly quashed insofar as the wife's monetary claims were concerned, with the daughter's independent rights expressly preserved.
Why the decision matters
The judgment strengthens the finality of matrimonial settlements. Mutual consent divorces are almost invariably built on a financial settlement: a one-time payment, a waiver of maintenance, a division of assets. If those settled claims could be reopened through a later DV Act complaint framed around the same marriage, no settlement would ever buy peace. The Supreme Court's answer is that a voluntary, informed waiver by the wife binds her, and the DV Act cannot be used as a second bite at claims she has given up.
Equally important is the limit the Court placed on that principle. The DV Act recognises children as persons entitled to relief, and a child's claims belong to the child. A parent cannot bargain away a child's statutory entitlements in a settlement to which the child is not a party. Practitioners drafting settlement agreements should therefore deal with the children's claims separately and transparently — through provisions for their maintenance, education and residence — rather than assume that the spouses' mutual waivers cover the whole family.
Practical takeaways for Delhi practice
- Record waivers in express, unambiguous terms, and recite that each party has understood the rights being given up, ideally with independent legal advice noted.
- Act on the settlement promptly — a decree of divorce founded on the settlement makes the waiver very difficult to resile from.
- Provide separately for children: their maintenance and expenses should be addressed as distinct obligations, since their claims survive the parents' settlement.
- Where settled claims are nonetheless re-agitated, quashing before the High Court is the appropriate remedy, and this judgment now supplies direct Supreme Court authority.
Note: This article summarises a judgment of the Supreme Court of India for general information. It is not legal advice, and it does not refer to any matter conducted by the chamber.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this judgment mean a DV case can never be filed after divorce?
No. The DV Act can apply to acts of domestic violence committed during the domestic relationship, and divorce by itself is not a bar. What the Supreme Court disapproved is the revival, through DV proceedings, of monetary claims that the aggrieved person had already and voluntarily relinquished in a settlement followed by a mutual consent divorce.
Why was the daughter treated differently from the wife?
Because the settlement agreement was executed only between the husband and the wife. The daughter was not a party to it, so she could not be deemed to have waived anything. The Court left it open to her to initiate proceedings for monetary relief in accordance with law, independently of her mother's settlement.
What makes a waiver of claims in a settlement effective?
The Court stressed that the parties were well educated and cognizant of their rights, and must be deemed to have consciously and voluntarily executed the settlement and the joint divorce petition. A waiver that is informed, voluntary and acted upon — for instance by taking the divorce decree founded on it — will ordinarily bind the party who gave it.
Which court quashes DV proceedings of this kind?
Quashing of pending proceedings is sought before the High Court, and thereafter the Supreme Court in appeal. In this case the Kerala High Court had declined to quash; the Supreme Court reversed that view for the wife's claims while protecting the daughter's separate rights.