A spousal settlement bars subsequent DV monetary claims but cannot waive an adult daughter’s independent rights.

The appellant-husband challenged the Kerala High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1-wife and respondent No. 2-daughter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”)

Before the proceedings, the appellant and respondent No. 1 executed a Settlement Agreement dated 23 July 2016, under which they agreed that neither would make future monetary claims against the other and that the wife would not claim maintenance.

They subsequently filed a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869 and obtained a mutual-consent divorce decree on 30 January 2017.

The wife also filed an affidavit before the Family Court affirming that she had relinquished her maintenance claim and that the divorce petition was filed voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence.

The respondents alleged that the settlement had been executed under duress, but the wife had not initiated proceedings to set aside either the settlement or the divorce decree.

The Supreme Court was also required to consider that respondent No. 2, who was a major when the settlement was executed, was not a party to it.

Whether proceedings under the DV Act relating to claims that had been voluntarily relinquished by the wife under a settlement agreement and affirmed in the mutual-consent divorce proceedings constituted an abuse of process

Whether mere allegations that the settlement agreement was executed under coercion or duress could invalidate its effect in the absence of proceedings challenging the settlement or the divorce decree

Whether the settlement agreement executed only between the appellant and respondent No. 1 extinguished respondent No. 2-daughter’s independent monetary claims

The Court applied the principle that a voluntary and valid settlement agreement binds the parties to its terms, and that a party who has relinquished monetary or maintenance claims cannot ordinarily revive the same pre-settlement claims through subsequent proceedings.

It further relied on Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587, and Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, (2022) 11 SCC 705, for the rule that a settlement subsumes the original dispute or complaint, and that subsequent proceedings cannot be used to reverse the effect of a settlement; any non-compliance gives rise to appropriate fresh civil or criminal remedies.

However, a settlement binds only its parties and cannot waive or extinguish the independent rights of a person who was not a party to it.

The Court found that respondent No. 1 had expressly waived all future monetary and maintenance claims in the Settlement Agreement and had reiterated that waiver in her affidavit before the Family Court.

The absence of any pleaded post-divorce cause of action meant that the DV proceedings concerned alleged acts predating the settlement and sought to revive claims already relinquished.

The wife’s allegation of duress was insufficient because she had not legally challenged the Settlement Agreement or sought to set aside the divorce decree; her status as an educated person, coupled with the express declaration of free consent in the affidavit, supported the conclusion that the settlement was voluntary.

Accordingly, continuation of the proceedings against the appellant in respect of the wife’s extinguished claims constituted an abuse of process.

Nevertheless, because respondent No. 2-daughter was a major but had not executed or joined the Settlement Agreement, the Court held that her independent monetary rights had not been waived.

It quashed the proceedings in M.C. No. 23 of 2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery, insofar as they were founded on claims extinguished by the settlement.

The Court clarified that respondent No. 2-daughter remained at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary relief against the appellant in accordance with law, which would have to be decided on their merits.