A settlement between spouses can have significant legal consequences when one spouse expressly relinquishes monetary and maintenance claims and later seeks to revive the same claims through another proceeding.
In Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors., 2026 INSC 918, decided on 24 August 2026, the Supreme Court considered a settlement agreement under which the wife had relinquished monetary and maintenance claims and had subsequently affirmed the settlement by an affidavit before the Family Court.
The Court held, on the facts of that case, that the wife could not ordinarily revive claims that she had voluntarily relinquished through subsequent proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly where there was no subsequent cause of action and no legal proceeding had been brought to invalidate the settlement or divorce decree on the ground of coercion.
At the same time, the Court made an important distinction concerning the adult daughter, who was not a party to the settlement. The daughter's independent monetary rights were not treated as having been waived by an agreement to which she was not a party.
A settlement should therefore be examined carefully before it is signed. The identity of the parties, the rights expressly waived, the consideration or arrangements recorded, the status of children, subsequent causes of action and the manner in which the settlement is incorporated into court proceedings can all be legally significant.
The decision should not be read as laying down that every maintenance claim can be permanently waived in every circumstance. The effect of a settlement depends on its terms, the parties, the surrounding circumstances and the applicable law.
With Regards,
S. JEEVAGAN, M.A., LL.M.
Advocate & Legal Consultant
M/s. JEEVAGAN LAW ASSOCIATES, MADURAI.