Answer

I saw the article. In my opinion, from the standpoint of Jewish law the condition is valid, but legally it is not (as far as I know, one may not waive the right to go to the police, just as in an employment agreement between an employee and an employer. That is a mandatory right). The question then arises: what is the status of a divorce given with such a condition? Is it a case where the condition is void but the act remains valid (as with someone who makes a stipulation against what is written in the Torah, or perhaps a condition that is not in his power to fulfill, like “on condition that you go up to heaven”)? Or perhaps the condition stands and the act also stands (despite the illegality)? Or perhaps because of the illegality the act itself is void.
It seems to me that the first possibility is halakhically correct, meaning that the condition is void but the act remains valid. If so, then this is actually an ideal situation, since the woman can go to the police and that does not invalidate the divorce.
By the way, from the article it is not clear what role the religious court played. The headline seems a bit misleading to me. In the article, the judges claimed that the agreement was reached between the man and the woman, and the religious court merely approved it, not that the religious court forced it on the woman. In such a case, I am not sure that it is illegal. Both sides agreed that their dispute had ended and that they had no claims against each other. Of course, that is only on the civil level, not the criminal one.
Bottom line: the legal status of such a condition has to be examined, and that will determine its halakhic status.