Waived Maintenance Claim Can't Be Revived Under DV Act

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan, in Reji Baby v. Subi Mary (2026), quashed DV Act proceedings initiated by a wife and daughter against the husband, holding that a wife who has voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, through a Settlement Agreement and a subsequent affidavit before the Family Court, cannot revive such claims through DV Act proceedings. 

What was the Background of Reji Baby v. Subi Mary (2026), Case? 

• The husband (appellant) and wife (respondent no. 1) entered into a Settlement Agreement in 2016, under which the wife specifically agreed not to make any monetary or maintenance claims against the husband. 
• Pursuant to the settlement, a joint application for divorce was filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, and a divorce decree was passed in 2017. 
• Subsequently, the wife and daughter (respondent no. 2) filed a complaint under the DV Act. 
• The husband sought quashing of the complaint before the Kerala High Court, which dismissed his petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 
• The husband contended that the DV Act proceedings had been initiated after all disputes stood settled, that the wife had specifically waived monetary claims, and that the daughter had already received consideration in the form of two properties which she had sold. 
• The respondents contended that the Settlement Agreement was executed under duress since the wife wanted a speedy divorce to migrate to the United States, that the absence of a maintenance provision itself indicated coercion, and that a waiver of statutory and fundamental rights was void as against public policy. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Settlement Agreement and Affidavit: The Court noted that the wife had not merely executed the Settlement Agreement but had also filed an affidavit before the Family Court reiterating the waiver of her claim for maintenance and affirming that the divorce petition was filed out of free will, without coercion or undue influence. 
• On Absence of Fresh Cause of Action: The Court observed that the DV Act complaint pertained to alleged acts predating the Settlement Agreement, and no fresh cause of action arising after the divorce had been pleaded. 
• On the Plea of Duress: The Court noted that although the respondents sought to challenge the Settlement Agreement and divorce decree on the ground of duress, the wife had not instituted any proceedings to set aside the decree or to seek a declaration invalidating the Settlement Agreement. 
• On Conscious and Voluntary Execution: The Court held that mere averments of coercion, absent any legal challenge, cannot suffice, and that parties who are well educated and cognizant of their rights must be deemed to have consciously and voluntarily executed the Settlement Agreement and joint divorce petition. 
• On Precedent Against Reviving Settled Claims: The Court relied on Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, where it had deprecated the practice of initiating DV Act proceedings despite a valid compromise between the parties. 
• On the Daughter's Independent Right: The Court held that since the Settlement Agreement was executed solely between the husband and wife, and the daughter (who had attained majority prior to its execution) was not a party to it, it could not be said that the daughter had waived her right to monetary claims. 
• The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment and quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery, while clarifying that the daughter would remain at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary reliefs, to be decided on their own merits.

What is the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? 

Background & Purpose: 

• It is a social beneficial legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds. 
• It was brought into force on 26th October 2006. 
• It provides for effective protection of the rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. 
• The preamble of the Act makes clear that its reach extends to violence — whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic — all of which are to be redressed by the statute. 

Objectives: 

• The main object of the Act is to provide more effective protection to the constitutional rights of women and to protect them against violence of any kind occurring within the family. 
• It provides a remedy for enforcement of a woman's rights, including the right to residence, maintenance, custody, protection, and compensation. 

Domestic Violence (Section 3): 

• The term "domestic violence" has been widely defined under Section 3 of the Act. 
• Any act, omission, or conduct which harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb, or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person constitutes domestic violence. 
• Even harassment, threat, or coercion to meet any unlawful demand for dowry or other property or valuable security is covered under it. 
• Thus, domestic violence includes everything which harms or tends to cause any mental, physical, emotional, sexual, or economic harm/injury to the aggrieved woman. 

Key Concepts Relevant to the Case: 

• Economic Abuse: Includes deprivation of financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled, including maintenance. 
• Monetary Relief: A remedy under the Act distinct from maintenance under other personal laws, but similarly subject to principles of waiver where a valid, voluntary settlement exists. 
• Interplay with Settlement Agreements: Courts have consistently held that DV Act proceedings cannot be used to reagitate claims that were the subject of a valid, voluntary compromise, absent a fresh cause of action or successful legal challenge to that compromise.