Back
Reji Baby v Subi Mary: Supreme Court Quashes DV Proceedings Over Waived Monetary Claims
The has delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the , holding that a wife who willingly relinquished her monetary and maintenance claims under a cannot later revive those claims by initiating proceedings under the . The bench, comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan, allowed the husband’s appeal and quashed domestic violence proceedings that had been filed after the parties had already settled all financial disputes through a compromise and obtained a .
The judgment, pronounced on , in , sets aside an order of the that had refused to quash the DV complaint. While doing so, the Court drew a careful distinction for the couple’s adult daughter, who was not a party to the settlement and therefore retains the liberty to pursue independent monetary claims against her father.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from the breakdown of a marriage between the appellant-husband, Reji Baby, and the first respondent-wife, Subi Mary. On , the parties executed a in which the wife specifically agreed that all monetary transactions between them had been concluded and that neither party would make any future monetary claims against the other. She expressly relinquished her claim for maintenance. Pursuant to this agreement, the couple filed a joint petition under , and obtained a decree of divorce on .
Prior to the decree, on , the wife filed an affidavit before the , affirming that all claims and liabilities had been settled, that she had voluntarily relinquished her maintenance claim, and that the divorce petition was filed out of her free will without any or .
Despite this clear settlement, the wife and their daughter subsequently filed a complaint under the DV Act (M.C. No. 23/2017) before the , seeking monetary relief for alleged acts of domestic violence. The husband petitioned the to quash the complaint, but the High Court dismissed his petition on , leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Apex Court
The husband’s counsel, , contended that the respondents were re-agitating claims that had been fully extinguished by the settlement and the divorce decree. It was also submitted that the daughter had already received consideration in the form of two properties, which she later sold.
In response, the wife’s counsel, , argued that the had been executed under , as the wife needed a speedy divorce to migrate to the United States. It was further contended that a settlement waiving statutory maintenance without any provision for the wife was . The daughter’s counsel, , clarified that the two properties were already registered in the daughter’s name, so she had received no fresh consideration.
Court’s Reasoning: Cannot Be Revived
The Supreme Court began by examining the terms of the and the affidavit filed by the wife. The agreement recorded that “all the monetary transactions between us have been come to an end based on this, both of us will not make any monetary claim in future against each other, the second party will not claim any maintenance allowance from the first party.” The wife’s affidavit additionally stated that there was “no or ” in filing the divorce petition.
The bench observed that the DV complaint pertained solely to acts allegedly committed before the settlement, and that no arising after the divorce had been pleaded. Crucially, the wife had not instituted any proceedings to set aside the divorce decree or to seek a declaration invalidating the . The Court held that “mere averments of , absent any legal challenge, cannot suffice. The parties, being well educated and cognizant of their rights, must be deemed to have consciously and voluntarily executed the and joint divorce petition.”
Rejecting the argument that the settlement was , the Court noted that the wife had not only signed the agreement but had also reaffirmed it under oath before the Family Court. The bench emphasized that once a party voluntarily relinquishes monetary claims, “revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.”
Reliance on Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
The Supreme Court placed strong reliance on its recent decision in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 587), which deprecated the practice of initiating DV proceedings despite a valid compromise. In that case, the Court had held that parties who voluntarily enter into an authenticated settlement cannot ordinarily resile from its terms, and that any deviation must be dealt with strictly to preserve the integrity of the mediation and settlement process.
The bench also cited Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel ((2022) 11 SCC 705), which held that when a complainant enters into a settlement with open eyes, they cannot later reverse the effects of the agreement by pursuing both the original complaint and a subsequent one. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the wife’s efforts to revive her waived claims through the DV Act constituted an .
Daughter’s Independent Rights Preserved
While quashing the proceedings against the husband in so far as the wife’s claims were concerned, the Supreme Court made an important exception for the daughter. The daughter had attained majority before the execution of the and was not a party to it. The Court noted that she could not be treated as having waived her own monetary claims through an agreement to which she was not a party.
Accordingly, the bench held that “respondent no. 2 – the daughter, had not waived her right to monetary claims” and expressly preserved her liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary relief against the appellant in accordance with law. This aspect of the ruling ensures that the rights of adult children who are not bound by parental settlements remain protected.
Final Orders and Significance
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the ’s judgment, and quashed M.C. No. 23/2017 pending before the . The Court clarified that the daughter is at liberty to pursue independent monetary relief, and that any such proceedings will be decided on their own merits.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to family law practitioners that voluntary settlements, especially those made with full knowledge and affirmed under oath, cannot be undone by invoking protective legislation like the DV Act. The ruling strengthens the principle of in matrimonial disputes and warns against through subsequent proceedings that undermine earlier compromises.
For legal professionals, the decision underscores the importance of documenting waivers of monetary claims in clear, unequivocal language and obtaining sworn affidavits to pre-empt later challenges. The preservation of the daughter’s rights also highlights that settlements bind only the parties to them, leaving third-party claims unaffected.
As the Supreme Court continues to discourage in family matters, this judgment will likely be cited in countless future cases where one party seeks to revive settled claims under the guise of domestic violence allegations.
