Can Maintenance Be Claimed After Full & Final Divorce Settlement? Reji Baby v Subi Mary, 2026 INSC 918

By Adv. Govind Bali | Fastrack Legal Solutions LLP

The question whether maintenance can be waived in a matrimonial settlement is often answered too broadly. Some parties assume that every “full and final” clause permanently extinguishes all statutory rights. Others assume that no maintenance waiver can ever have binding effect. The Supreme Court’s August 2026 judgment in Reji Baby v. Subi Mary requires a more precise analysis.

The judgment is principally about finality of a voluntary, acted-upon matrimonial settlement and abuse of process. It should not be read as a blanket proposition that every spouse can always contract out of every maintenance right regardless of circumstances.

1. Case details

• Case: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors.
• Citation: 2026 INSC 918
• Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021
• Date: 24 August 2026
• Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan
• Issue: Whether monetary/maintenance claims expressly relinquished in a settlement leading to mutual-consent divorce could be revived through subsequent DV Act proceedings.

Judgment text: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary, 2026 INSC 918.

2. What had the wife agreed to?

The husband and wife entered into a written settlement resolving their matrimonial disputes. The wife agreed that monetary transactions between them had been settled and that she would not make future monetary claims, including a maintenance claim against the husband.

Crucially, the settlement did not remain a private piece of paper. The wife later filed an affidavit before the Family Court reiterating the waiver and the parties obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

3. What happened after divorce?

After the settlement and mutual-consent divorce, proceedings were initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The husband sought quashing, contending that the wife was attempting to revive monetary claims that had already been voluntarily relinquished and judicially acted upon.

The Kerala High Court declined to quash the proceedings. The husband approached the Supreme Court.

4. Supreme Court: settled monetary claims could not simply be revived

The Supreme Court held that continuation of the DV proceedings, insofar as they attempted to revive the wife’s relinquished monetary claims, amounted to abuse of process in the facts of the case.

The Court attached importance to the combination of circumstances:

• a written settlement agreement;
• express relinquishment of monetary and maintenance claims;
• a subsequent affidavit before the Family Court reaffirming the waiver;
• mutual-consent divorce granted on the settlement framework;
• no successful proceeding setting aside the settlement;
• no successful challenge to the divorce decree;
• the later DV claim related to grievances predating the settlement.

5. Allegation of duress: why it failed in this case

The wife argued that the settlement had been executed under duress. The Supreme Court did not accept that a later assertion of coercion could, by itself, permit the settlement to be ignored when the wife had previously affirmed it before the Family Court and had not instituted an effective legal proceeding to invalidate the settlement or set aside the divorce decree.

This is a critical procedural principle. A party who alleges that a settlement was procured by fraud, coercion or undue influence should challenge it through the legally available route. The settlement cannot necessarily be treated as nonexistent while the judicial decree founded on it remains operative.

6. Does Reji Baby mean every wife can waive maintenance forever?

No. That would overstate the judgment.

Reji Baby arose from a specific factual structure: voluntary written settlement, explicit waiver, reaffirmation by affidavit, court proceedings based upon it, and no successful challenge to the settlement or decree. The subsequent complaint sought to revive pre-settlement claims.

The judgment should therefore be understood as protecting the finality of an acted-upon judicial settlement, not as creating a universal rule that every possible future statutory claim can always be waived in advance.

7. Fresh post-settlement cause of action is a different question

If a genuinely new act of domestic violence or a legally distinct cause of action arises after settlement/divorce, maintainability must be examined on its own facts. Reji Baby concerned attempts to reopen claims arising from the earlier matrimonial relationship that had already been compromised.

Settlement drafting should therefore distinguish between:

• existing claims being compromised;
• past maintenance arrears;
• future spousal maintenance;
• stridhan;
• property rights;
• claims of children;
• fresh independent causes of action that may arise later.

8. The daughter’s rights survived

The most important qualification in Reji Baby concerns the parties’ daughter. She had attained majority before execution of the settlement and was not a party to the agreement between her parents.

The Supreme Court therefore held that it could not be said that the daughter had waived her independent monetary rights merely because her mother had executed the settlement. The Court preserved her liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for monetary relief in accordance with law.

9. Parents cannot casually extinguish a non-party’s independent rights

This principle matters far beyond Reji Baby. Matrimonial settlements frequently contain sweeping language such as “all claims of the wife and children are fully settled.” That clause may not, by itself, extinguish an independent statutory right belonging to a person who was not a party or whose rights cannot lawfully be compromised in that manner.

Where child support/custody terms are included, draft them separately and ensure the arrangement remains consistent with the child’s welfare.

See Child Custody Settlement & Parenting Plan in India.

10. Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi: 2026 settlement finality

The Supreme Court in Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 INSC 360, had earlier in April 2026 dealt with a detailed mediated matrimonial settlement that was substantially performed before one spouse resiled and later proceedings were initiated.

In Reji Baby, the Supreme Court referred to settlement-finality principles consistent with Dhananjay Rathi: parties who consciously enter and act upon a court-backed settlement cannot simply disregard it when later litigation becomes more attractive.

Read: Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 INSC 360.

11. Settlement agreement vs waiver clause

A sentence saying “wife waives maintenance” should not be drafted in isolation. A strong matrimonial settlement should record:

• pending proceedings and case numbers;
• existing maintenance orders;
• amount of arrears;
• consideration or overall financial settlement;
• payment schedule;
• stridhan/articles returned;
• property transfers;
• whether Section 24/25 HMA, DV and BNSS claims are settled;
• which proceedings will be withdrawn/quashed;
• child-related rights and expenses;
• voluntariness and absence of coercion;
• independent legal advice where applicable;
• what happens on breach.

12. “Full and final” should identify what is actually final

Overbroad boilerplate creates future litigation. Instead of “all claims whatsoever forever,” specify:

13. What if the settlement really was coerced?

A genuine allegation of coercion, fraud or undue influence should be supported by prompt legal action and evidence. Depending on the situation, relief may require challenge to the settlement, consent decree/divorce decree or connected order through the correct forum.

Relevant evidence can include:

• contemporaneous communications;
• medical or threat evidence;
• objections recorded before court;
• absence of independent representation;
• immediate post-settlement protest;
• circumstances showing lack of free consent.

A belated allegation is not automatically false, but delay and earlier sworn affirmations will be examined.

14. Can a spouse file DV proceedings after divorce?

The answer is not universally “no.” Maintainability depends on the nature of the alleged domestic relationship, relief sought, timing of alleged acts, limitation/jurisdiction questions, prior settlement and binding precedents.

Reji Baby specifically addresses a subsequent attempt to revive monetary claims that had already been expressly settled and reaffirmed before the Family Court.

15. Can settled maintenance be revived because financial circumstances later worsen?

That question depends on the statutory basis, exact settlement language, decree and nature of the relief. Reji Baby involved an express comprehensive relinquishment that had been acted upon. It should not be casually extended to every modification application under statutes that expressly permit variation on changed circumstances.

For modification of continuing maintenance orders, see How to Increase, Reduce or Modify Maintenance in India.

16. Can settlement breach create a fresh cause of action?

Yes, depending on the obligation. A breach may lead to execution, enforcement, contempt where a court undertaking/order is wilfully disobeyed, or another civil/criminal remedy recognised by law. But that does not necessarily revive the original claims that the settlement extinguished.

See Contempt vs Execution in Matrimonial Cases.

17. Practical drafting lessons after Reji Baby

1. List every pending proceeding.
2. Quantify existing maintenance arrears.
3. State exactly which monetary claims are settled.
4. Record payment/consideration clearly.
5. Separate spouse’s claims from children’s rights.
6. Record voluntariness before court.
7. Avoid oral side-promises.
8. Attach itemised jewellery/stridhan lists.
9. Specify withdrawal/quashing sequence.
10. Build default consequences into the settlement.
11. Incorporate the settlement into judicial orders where appropriate.
12. Preserve independent rights that cannot lawfully be compromised.

18. Practical litigation lessons for a spouse facing revived claims

If a later case appears to reopen a settled monetary claim:

1. produce the settlement;
2. produce the consent decree/divorce decree;
3. produce affidavits/statements recording waiver;
4. show payment/performance;
5. identify whether the later allegations predate settlement;
6. show whether the settlement has ever been set aside;
7. separate the claimant’s rights from any child/non-party rights;
8. seek the appropriate quashing/dismissal/enforcement remedy.

19. Practical lessons for a spouse alleging settlement invalidity

1. Do not simply ignore the settlement.
2. Identify the legal ground of invalidity.
3. Challenge it through the proper proceeding.
4. Explain prior affidavit/court statements.
5. identify any fresh post-settlement cause of action separately.
6. avoid combining extinguished claims with genuinely new claims.

20. Frequently Asked Questions

Can a wife claim maintenance after signing a full-and-final divorce settlement?

Reji Baby holds that where the wife voluntarily and expressly waived monetary/maintenance claims, reaffirmed the waiver before the Family Court and obtained divorce on that basis, she could not revive the same pre-settlement claims through later DV proceedings while the settlement remained unchallenged.

What is the citation of Reji Baby v Subi Mary?

2026 INSC 918, Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021, decided 24 August 2026.

Does Reji Baby abolish maintenance after divorce?

No. The decision concerns the effect of a particular voluntary settlement and court-backed waiver. It does not abolish statutory maintenance rights generally.

Can a child’s maintenance be waived by the mother’s settlement?

Not automatically. In Reji Baby, the major daughter was not a party to the settlement and her independent monetary rights were preserved.

Can a settlement be challenged for coercion?

Potentially yes through the legally appropriate remedy, supported by evidence. A party cannot simply treat a subsisting court-backed settlement and decree as nonexistent.

21. Key takeaway

Reji Baby is a judgment about finality and judicial consistency: a party who voluntarily settles, swears to the settlement and obtains a divorce on that basis cannot ordinarily revive the same settled monetary claims without first successfully challenging the settlement or decree. But independent rights of non-parties—especially children—must be analysed separately.

Disclaimer: General legal information only. Settlement validity, waiver, maintenance and DV Act remedies depend on the text of the agreement, decree, voluntariness, rights of children/non-parties and any later cause of action.