INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that when a wife has waived any monetary claims she might have against her husband through a settlement agreement and reiterated her stand regarding such waiver in her sworn affidavit filed before the Family Court, she cannot revive these claims through new proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A Bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan, while dismissing an appeal in a judgment written by Justice Manmohan on 24th August 2026, set aside the order of Kerala High Court and dismissed the domestic violence complaint, holding that the proceedings were abuse of process of law.
BACKGROUND
It was the case of the appellant-husband wherein he approached the High Court of Kerala for dismissal of a complaint made by his ex-wife and daughter under the DV Act, as he invoked a Settlement Agreement dated 23rd July 2016 under which his wife expressly waived off all claims for maintenance or compensation from him. After entering into the settlement agreement, the husband and wife filed an application jointly under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, thereby getting the divorce order passed on 30th January 2017. Further, an affidavit was filed by the wife in the Family Court on 24th January 2017, stating that she waived off her claims for maintenance and also mentioned that the divorce suit was filed voluntarily without any sort of pressure on her part.
KEY POINTS
- It was submitted on behalf of the husband that the DV Act proceedings were a re-agitation of issues which had already been extinguished by the Settlement Agreement, and that the daughter, one of the respondents in this case, had been granted two separate properties which she had since sold.
- The respondents claimed that the Settlement Agreement was signed under coercion by the wife, was presented in a situation where she wanted to quickly dissolve the marriage in order to move to the US, and that an agreement which waives statutory and basic rights without considering maintenance is against public policy and is therefore null and void. It was also denied that the daughter ever received properties from the appellant, with the allegation that the properties belonged to her anyway.
- The Court decided that after the wife voluntarily renounced her claims for money, including maintenance, both in the Settlement Agreement and in a later affidavit to the Family Court, further claiming could not be entertained and was therefore an abuse of process.
- It was observed by the Bench that no new cause of action had been pleaded by the respondents that had occurred post-divorce, and the charge of domestic violence was with respect to those acts that had occurred before the settlement.
- Notably, the Court highlighted the fact that no independent suit had been filed for challenging the validity of the divorce decree or making a declaration declaring the Settlement Agreement to be null and void; an allegation of coercion alone would not suffice without challenging the very settlement in the form of any legal proceeding, especially when both the parties were educated and aware of their rights.
- The Court was guided by the judgment in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 587), wherein the coordinate Bench had itself referred to the three-judge Bench’s decision in Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, (2022) 11 SCC 705, for the proposition that “the settlement agreement covers the original grievance and the person who retracts from such an agreement must pay heavily.”
This Court, however, made an exception in respect of the daughter because she had become a major prior to the signing of the Settlement Agreement and was not herself a party to that agreement; thus, her financial claims against the appellant, the Court ruled, cannot be considered as having been waived by virtue of the settlement.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Upon accepting the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the decision of the High Court of Kerala dated 26 October 2018 was to be set aside and the proceeding instituted under M.C. No. 23/2017 pending in the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery, would stand quashed. It was made clear that the daughter would still have the right to institute fresh proceedings for monetary compensation from the appellant, if she so wishes.
CONCLUSION
This decision supports the developing trend in Supreme Court cases in which voluntarily made settlement agreements, especially when reaffirmed in the form of affidavits in court, are deemed conclusive and binding, indicating that plaintiffs who try to resurrect the abandoned claims must attack the settlement agreement in question instead of claiming duress through separate proceedings. On the other hand, by protecting the right of the daughter to bring her own claims, the Court has been careful not to extend the conclusive nature of the settlement beyond those parties who entered into it.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: DRISHTITA BANIK
