Supreme Court quashes DV Act case after wife waived maintenance in settlement
A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan quashed domestic violence proceedings, holding that a wife who voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims cannot revive them without challenging the settlement.
The Supreme Court has set aside a Kerala High Court order and quashed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, holding that they amounted to an abuse of process. In Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors., the Court found that the wife had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, through a Settlement Agreement dated 23 July 2016 and a subsequent affidavit before the Family Court. Having secured a divorce by mutual consent on that basis, she could not revive the same claims through a later domestic violence complaint without first challenging the settlement itself. The Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan allowed the husband's appeal, but preserved the daughter's separate right to seek monetary relief, since she was not a party to the settlement.
How the dispute reached the Court
The appellant-husband, Reji Baby, had approached the High Court of Kerala under CRL. MC No. 8568/2017 seeking to quash the complaint filed by the respondents under the DV Act. The High Court dismissed that petition by its judgment dated 26 October 2018.
Before the Supreme Court, the husband argued that the DV Act proceedings had been initiated only after the parties settled their disputes. Under the Settlement Agreement, the wife had agreed not to make any monetary or maintenance claims. The parties then filed a joint application under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, and obtained a divorce decree dated 30 January 2017.
His counsel contended that the later proceedings re-agitated claims that stood extinguished after the settlement was executed. He also submitted that the daughter had been given two properties, since sold by her.
The wife's answer: duress and public policy
Counsel for the respondents admitted that the wife had agreed to forego all monetary claims against the husband. The defence was that the Settlement Agreement had been executed under duress. According to the respondents, they wanted a speedy disposal of the divorce as they intended to migrate to the United States, and it was for that reason alone that the wife surrendered her monetary claims unconditionally.
The respondents argued that coercion was evident because the agreement provided no consideration or maintenance. A valid settlement, they said, ought to provide statutory maintenance to the wife, and an agreement waiving statutory and fundamental rights was void as against public policy. On the daughter's position, they stated she had received no properties from the husband and that the two properties referred to were already in her name.
What the Court held
The Court held that the DV Act proceedings constituted an abuse of process. Once the wife had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings could not be permitted.
The record showed that the wife not only executed the Settlement Agreement but also filed an affidavit dated 24 January 2017 before the Family Court reiterating her waiver. The agreement recorded that “the second party will not claim any maintenance allowance from the first party.” The affidavit stated that there was “no coercion or undue influence in filing this petition.”
The Court found that the domestic violence complaint pertained to alleged acts predating the Settlement Agreement, and the respondents had not pleaded any fresh cause of action arising after the divorce.
Why the duress plea failed
The wife had sought to challenge both the Settlement Agreement and the decree of divorce on the ground of duress. But she had not instituted any proceedings to set aside the decree or to obtain a declaration invalidating the settlement.
The Court said mere averments of coercion, absent any legal challenge, could not suffice. The parties, being well educated and aware of their rights, must be deemed to have consciously and voluntarily executed the settlement and the joint divorce petition.
The Court relied on a co-ordinate Bench decision in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, which deprecated initiating DV Act proceedings despite a valid compromise. That decision drew on Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, where a three-Judge Bench held that parties cannot reverse the effect of a settlement by pursuing original or subsequent complaints, because a settlement authenticated by a mediator subsumes the original complaint.
The daughter's position preserved
The Court drew a distinction on the daughter's claims. The Settlement Agreement was executed solely between the husband and the wife. The daughter, who had attained majority before the settlement was executed, was not a party to it. The Court held it could not be said that she had waived her right to monetary claims.
Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment dated 26 October 2018 in CRL. MC No. 8568/2017. Proceedings in M.C. 23/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery, were quashed.
The Court clarified that the daughter is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary reliefs against the husband, if so advised, in accordance with law, and that any such proceedings shall be decided accordingly. Pending applications were disposed of.