Can Wife Claim Maintenance Under DV Act After Waiving It in Divorce Settlement? Supreme Court Says No

Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors. | Supreme Court of India | 24 August 2026 | 2026 INSC 918 | Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021

Can a wife first enter into a matrimonial settlement, expressly give up all future maintenance and monetary claims, obtain divorce by mutual consent on that basis, and then subsequently file proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking monetary relief against her former husband?

The Supreme Court has now answered this important question.

In Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors., decided on 24 August 2026, the Supreme Court held that where a wife has consciously and voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, through a settlement agreement and has reaffirmed that waiver before the Family Court, she cannot subsequently revive the same claims through proceedings under the DV Act without legally challenging the settlement itself.

The Court consequently quashed the domestic violence proceedings against the husband as an abuse of the process of law.

However, there is an important exception in the judgment: the parties’ major daughter was not a party to the settlement, and therefore her independent monetary rights were not extinguished.

Case Details

Case: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 918
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021
Date: 24 August 2026
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan
Subject: Domestic Violence Act, matrimonial settlement, maintenance waiver and quashing of proceedings.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court’s central proposition can be stated simply:

A wife who voluntarily gives up her maintenance and monetary claims through a matrimonial settlement, reiterates the waiver before the Family Court and obtains a mutual-consent divorce on that basis cannot subsequently revive the very same monetary claims through proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act without first challenging the settlement.

The Court found the subsequent DV proceedings to constitute an abuse of process because:

• there was a written settlement;
• the wife expressly relinquished maintenance;
• she subsequently filed an affidavit confirming that relinquishment;
• she stated before the Family Court that there was no coercion or undue influence;
• divorce was granted pursuant to that settlement;
• the settlement was never set aside;
• the divorce decree was never successfully challenged; and
• the subsequent DV complaint related to alleged acts which had occurred before the settlement, rather than any fresh post-settlement cause of action.

These factual circumstances are crucial to understanding the judgment.

Background of Reji Baby v. Subi Mary

The husband and wife were involved in matrimonial disputes.

On 23 July 2016, they entered into a Settlement Agreement resolving their matrimonial differences.

The settlement specifically provided that the parties would not make future monetary claims against each other and that the wife would not claim maintenance from the husband.

Pursuant to this settlement, the parties filed a joint petition seeking divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869.

The wife subsequently filed an affidavit before the Family Court on 24 January 2017, reiterating that:

• all claims and liabilities between the parties had been settled;
• she had relinquished her maintenance claim;
• neither party would raise future claims arising from the marital relationship; and
• the mutual-consent divorce was being sought without coercion or undue influence.

The Family Court thereafter granted the parties a decree of divorce on 30 January 2017.

Wife Subsequently Filed a Domestic Violence Case

Despite the settlement and divorce, the wife and the parties’ daughter subsequently initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The complaint was registered as M.C. No. 23/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery.

The husband approached the Kerala High Court seeking quashing of those proceedings.

However, by judgment dated 26 October 2018, the Kerala High Court dismissed his quashing petition in Crl. M.C. No. 8568/2017.

The husband then approached the Supreme Court.

Husband’s Argument Before the Supreme Court

The husband’s primary argument was straightforward.

The matrimonial disputes had already been settled.

His wife had expressly agreed that she would:

not make any monetary claim in future and would not claim maintenance.

On the strength of that settlement, the parties obtained divorce by mutual consent.

Accordingly, it was argued that the subsequent DV proceedings were merely an attempt to re-agitate monetary claims which had already been consciously relinquished.

The husband therefore sought quashing of the complaint as an abuse of the judicial process.

Wife’s Argument: Settlement Was Signed Under Duress

The wife did not deny that she had agreed to relinquish her monetary claims.

Instead, it was argued on her behalf that the settlement had been executed under duress.

According to her case, a speedy divorce was required because of plans to migrate to the United States, and she had therefore agreed to the husband’s terms.

It was further argued that a settlement which deprived a wife of statutory maintenance without making provision for her financial security was contrary to public policy.

This raised an important question:

Can a spouse simply allege coercion years later and disregard a settlement which has already resulted in a decree of divorce?

The Supreme Court said that, on the facts of this case, she could not.

Mere Allegation of Coercion Is Not Enough

This is one of the most important aspects of the judgment.

The Supreme Court noticed that although the wife alleged coercion and duress before it, she had never taken appropriate legal proceedings to invalidate the Settlement Agreement.

She had also not successfully challenged the mutual-consent divorce decree obtained pursuant to the settlement.

On the contrary, the record contained her own affidavit before the Family Court stating that the settlement had been entered into voluntarily and that there had been no coercion or undue influence.

The Supreme Court therefore held that mere assertions of coercion, without a legal challenge to the settlement itself, were insufficient.

This aspect of the judgment can become extremely relevant in matrimonial litigation.

A party cannot ordinarily continue taking the benefit of a settlement and the decree obtained pursuant to it while simultaneously attempting to avoid only those clauses which have subsequently become inconvenient.

No Fresh Domestic Violence After the Settlement Was Alleged

Another crucial fact was that the DV complaint concerned alleged acts which occurred before the Settlement Agreement.

The Supreme Court specifically noted that there was no fresh cause of action pleaded on the basis of conduct occurring after the divorce.

This distinction is extremely important.

The judgment should therefore not be understood as holding that every DV proceeding filed after a divorce or settlement is automatically barred.

If there is an independent legal cause of action which survives the settlement, or a fresh cause of action which arises subsequently, the legal position may be different.

But in Reji Baby, the wife was essentially attempting to revive claims arising out of the same matrimonial relationship and events which had already existed when she voluntarily entered into the comprehensive settlement.

Supreme Court: Settlement Cannot Be Treated Lightly

The Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, where the Court had strongly deprecated parties resiling from settlements which had been consciously entered into and acted upon.

The principle is important for matrimonial litigation.

Settlement is not merely an informal promise between spouses.

Where:

1. negotiations culminate in a written settlement;
2. the parties act upon that settlement;
3. representations are made before a court;
4. a divorce decree or other judicial order follows; and
5. neither party successfully challenges the settlement,

courts will ordinarily expect the parties to honour the bargain.

The Supreme Court treated the later DV proceedings in the present case as contrary to that principle.

Does This Judgment Mean a Wife Can Always Waive Maintenance?

No.

This is perhaps the most important qualification to the judgment.

A broad headline saying:

“Supreme Court says wife can permanently waive maintenance”

would be legally misleading.

The Supreme Court’s decision arose in very particular circumstances involving:

• a comprehensive matrimonial settlement;
• an express relinquishment of monetary claims;
• an express waiver of maintenance;
• a separate affidavit before the Family Court;
• an assertion that there was no coercion;
• a mutual-consent divorce granted pursuant to the settlement;
• no proceedings successfully challenging the settlement;
• no challenge setting aside the divorce decree; and
• a subsequent DV complaint based upon allegations predating the settlement.

Therefore, Reji Baby is better understood as a judgment concerning the finality of voluntarily settled matrimonial claims, rather than laying down an absolute proposition that every statutory maintenance entitlement can always be contracted away.

Can Maintenance Be Claimed Again After Full and Final Settlement?

After Reji Baby, the answer will depend heavily upon the terms and circumstances of the settlement.

Where a wife has expressly stated that:

• the payment or settlement is full and final;
• all maintenance claims stand satisfied;
• there shall be no future monetary claim;
• the settlement has been voluntarily executed; and
• the agreement has been acted upon before a court,

a subsequent attempt to revive the same monetary claim may be vulnerable to challenge.

Particularly where no proceedings have been initiated to invalidate the settlement itself, Reji Baby provides strong authority for seeking quashing or dismissal of repetitive monetary proceedings.

What If the Wife Says the Settlement Was Forced?

A bare allegation may not be enough.

The judgment demonstrates the importance of what the party did after allegedly being coerced.

If a wife alleges that the settlement was obtained by fraud, coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation, an important question would be:

Did she actually challenge that settlement before the competent court?

Other relevant questions may include:

• Did she seek cancellation or declaration of invalidity?
• Did she challenge the mutual-consent divorce decree?
• Did she accept benefits under the settlement?
• Did she file affidavits confirming voluntary consent?
• How much time passed before coercion was alleged?
• Is the subsequent proceeding based upon matters already known at the time of settlement?

In Reji Baby, these factors worked against the wife.

Extremely Important for Drafting Matrimonial Settlements

This judgment also contains an important lesson for lawyers drafting settlements.

Vague settlement terms create future litigation.

If the intention is to achieve complete matrimonial closure, the settlement should precisely specify what is being settled.

Depending upon the facts, it should clearly address matters such as:

• past maintenance;
• present maintenance;
• permanent alimony;
• monetary relief under the DV Act;
• residence claims;
• compensation claims;
• stridhan;
• pending Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS proceedings;
• pending DV proceedings;
• matrimonial litigation;
• criminal complaints;
• withdrawal or quashing obligations; and
• whether any rights of children are intended to remain unaffected.

The stronger the drafting and the clearer the statements recorded before the court, the harder it becomes for either party to reopen a settled claim later.

The Daughter’s Claim Was Not Waived

The Supreme Court made an equally significant clarification concerning the parties’ daughter.

The daughter had attained majority before the settlement was executed.

But she was not a party to the Settlement Agreement entered into between the husband and wife.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that it could not be said that the daughter had relinquished her independent monetary claims merely because her mother had executed the settlement.

The Supreme Court therefore preserved her liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary relief against the father in accordance with law.

This is an important distinction for matrimonial settlements.

Can Parents Waive Children’s Maintenance Rights?

Reji Baby demonstrates why matrimonial settlements must distinguish between the rights of spouses and independent rights belonging to children.

A spouse may agree to settle or relinquish his or her individual monetary claim.

But that does not necessarily mean that the same settlement automatically extinguishes an independent legal entitlement belonging to a child who is not a party to the settlement.

The Court therefore quashed the pending DV proceedings but expressly protected the daughter’s liberty to pursue her own monetary claim independently.

Supreme Court Quashed the Entire Pending DV Proceedings

The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the husband’s appeal.

It:

• set aside the Kerala High Court judgment dated 26 October 2018;
• quashed proceedings in M.C. No. 23/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery; and
• preserved the daughter’s liberty to institute fresh proceedings seeking monetary relief independently.

Thus, nearly a decade after the original settlement, the Supreme Court gave effect to the voluntary arrangement entered into between the husband and wife.

Why Reji Baby Is Important for Husband-Side Matrimonial Strategy

From a defence perspective, this judgment can become particularly useful where there is a second round of monetary litigation after a comprehensive settlement.

For example:

Husband and wife execute a settlement.

The husband performs his obligations.

The wife records before the Family Court that there are no outstanding claims.

Divorce is granted.

Subsequently, another proceeding is filed seeking maintenance or monetary relief on substantially the same pre-settlement allegations.

In such a situation, the defence should not merely argue:

“She already took a settlement.”

A properly structured challenge should place the entire legal sequence before the court:

Settlement Agreement → waiver clause → affidavit → payment/performance → court statement → divorce decree → absence of challenge to settlement → subsequent repetitive proceeding.

That sequence was critical in Reji Baby.

Five Questions to Ask When a DV Case Is Filed After Settlement

Whenever a post-settlement DV proceeding is filed, the following five questions become important:

1. What exactly was waived?

Read the settlement carefully.

Did it mention only one pending case?

Or did it expressly settle:

maintenance, alimony, monetary claims and all claims arising from the matrimonial relationship?

The language matters.

2. Was the settlement acted upon?

A settlement which was fully performed stands on a very different footing from one which collapsed because one party failed to perform his obligations.

3. Was the settlement confirmed before a court?

Statements, affidavits and mutual-consent divorce proceedings can provide strong contemporaneous evidence of voluntary consent.

4. Has the wife challenged the settlement?

If she alleges fraud or coercion, check whether she ever sought to have the settlement or the resulting decree legally set aside.

5. Does the later complaint disclose a fresh cause of action?

This may be decisive.

In Reji Baby, the Supreme Court specifically noticed that the DV allegations related to events before the settlement and no fresh post-divorce cause of action was pleaded.

Practical Example

Suppose a wife files DV and maintenance proceedings against her husband.

Later, the parties enter into mediation and settle all matrimonial disputes for an agreed amount.

The settlement expressly states:

“The wife shall have no past, present or future maintenance, alimony or monetary claims against the husband arising from the matrimonial relationship.”

She receives the agreed settlement amount and files an affidavit confirming that the settlement is voluntary.

A mutual-consent divorce is granted.

A year later she files another DV proceeding seeking monetary relief on the basis of the same allegations which existed before the settlement.

After Reji Baby, the husband would have a substantial argument that the proceedings amount to an attempt to revive claims which were consciously settled and relinquished.

The result could be different if:

• the settlement was not performed;
• the settlement itself was legally invalidated;
• fraud or coercion was established;
• the subsequent claim concerned an independent right not covered by the agreement; or
• a legally sustainable fresh cause of action arose subsequently.

Key Legal Principle From Reji Baby v. Subi Mary

The ratio of the judgment may be summarised as follows:

Where a spouse voluntarily relinquishes all monetary and maintenance claims through a matrimonial settlement, reiterates that relinquishment by affidavit before the Family Court and obtains a mutual-consent divorce on that basis, the same pre-existing monetary claims cannot ordinarily be revived through subsequent DV Act proceedings while the settlement and divorce decree continue to remain unchallenged.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a wife claim maintenance after agreeing to a full and final settlement?

Not automatically. Where maintenance has expressly been relinquished through a voluntary and acted-upon matrimonial settlement, Reji Baby v. Subi Mary supports the proposition that the same claim cannot simply be revived through subsequent DV proceedings.

Can a wife file a DV case after mutual-consent divorce?

The mere fact of divorce does not by itself answer every DV claim. But where the parties have already comprehensively settled their disputes and the subsequent proceedings merely seek to revive monetary claims arising from pre-settlement allegations, Reji Baby can provide a strong basis for challenging the proceedings.

Can a wife challenge a settlement by simply saying it was signed under pressure?

A mere allegation may not be sufficient. In Reji Baby, the Supreme Court attached importance to the fact that the wife had not taken legal proceedings to invalidate the settlement or divorce decree and had previously filed an affidavit affirming absence of coercion.

Does a settlement automatically cancel children’s maintenance rights?

No. The Supreme Court protected the rights of the major daughter because she was not a party to the settlement executed by her parents.

What if domestic violence occurs after the settlement?

Reji Baby specifically involved allegations relating to conduct predating the settlement and no fresh post-divorce cause of action was pleaded. A genuinely fresh and legally maintainable cause of action would require separate examination.

What is the citation of Reji Baby v. Subi Mary?

Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors., 2026 INSC 918, Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021, decided on 24 August 2026 by Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court judgment in Reji Baby v. Subi Mary strengthens the finality of matrimonial settlements.

It sends an important message that a party cannot ordinarily obtain the benefit of a negotiated settlement, expressly relinquish monetary claims, confirm that waiver before a Family Court, obtain divorce pursuant to the settlement and subsequently attempt to revive the same pre-existing claims through another proceeding.

At the same time, the judgment must not be stretched too far.

It does not establish that every maintenance right can always be waived or that every DV complaint after divorce is barred.

The judgment turned on the voluntary settlement, the express waiver, the subsequent affidavit, the unchallenged divorce decree and the absence of a fresh post-settlement cause of action.

For matrimonial practitioners, the practical takeaway is equally important:

Draft settlements carefully, record fulfilment properly and preserve every affidavit, court statement and payment record.

Those documents may ultimately determine whether litigation actually ends with the settlement—or begins again several years later.