LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 24 August 2026

Whether mere averments of coercion suffice to set aside a Settlement Agreement without any legal challenge?

REJI BABY v. SUBI MARY & ORS
2026 INSC 918 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1346 OF 2021
Coram: Manmohan; Sandeep Mehta
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Protection of Women from Domesti…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Mere averments of coercion, absent any legal challenge, cannot suffice. Where the wife has not instituted any proceedings to set aside the decree or to seek a declaration invalidating the Settlement Agreement, parties who are well educated and cognizant of their rights must be deemed to have consciously and voluntarily executed the Settlement Agreement and the joint divorce petition.

Headnote

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Divorce Act, 1869 — s.10A — Settlement Agreement — Waiver of monetary claims and maintenance — Abuse of process — Daughter not a party to the Settlement Agreement — Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Settlement Agreement — Monetary claims relinquished — Abuse of process — Held: Where a wife has voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, revival of those claims through subsequent proceedings under the DV Act cannot be permitted; such proceedings constitute an abuse of process. (¶8) Divorce Act, 1869 — s.10A — Settlement Agreement — Plea of coercion without legal challenge — Held further: Mere averments of coercion cannot suffice absent any proceedings to set aside the decree or to seek a declaration invalidating the Settlement Agreement; parties cognizant of their rights are deemed to have executed it consciously and voluntarily. (¶11, 12) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Settlement Agreement — Daughter not a party — Liberty to claim monetary relief — Held further: A daughter who had attained age of majority before the Settlement Agreement and was not a party to it cannot be said to have waived her right to monetary claims, and shall be at the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. Appeal allowed; complaint quashed. (¶14, 15)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 11The respondents have sought to challenge the Settlement Agreement and decree of divorce on the ground of duress. However, respondent No.1-wife has not instituted any proceedings to set aside the decree or to seek a declaration invalidating the Settlement Agreement.
Paragraph 12Mere averments of coercion, 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 Settlement Agreement and joint divorce petition.
Acts & Sections
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005s.10A Divorce Act, 1869

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of REJI BABY v. SUBI MARY & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Whether DV Act proceedings are an abuse of process after the wife relinquished all monetary claims?Can a DV Act complaint be permitted where no fresh cause of action arose post-divorce?Is a daughter who was not a party to the Settlement Agreement bound by its waiver?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections