Recently, the Supreme Court addressed the appellant’s challenge to the High Court’s ruling concerning maintenance under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Magistrate had initially granted the appellant maintenance and compensation, but the respondent-husband did not present evidence during the proceedings. Following the dismissal of the husband’s delayed appeal, he sought to modify the order under Section 25. The Supreme Court highlighted that any changes must be based on demonstrable post-order circumstances and clarified that modifications to maintenance orders are prospective only, reaffirming the protections for women under the DV Act.
The appellant had initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, which resulted in an order by the learned Magistrate on 23.02.2015, granting her monthly maintenance of Rs. 12,000 and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. Notably, the respondent-husband did not present any evidence during this proceeding. Subsequently, the respondent filed an appeal against the Magistrate’s order under Section 29 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court due to delays, thus rendering the original order final.
Later, the respondent filed an application under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act, which was dismissed by the Magistrate. This dismissal led the respondent to appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 757/2020, which was allowed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The appellant then filed a revision petition against this remand, which was dismissed by the High Court, instructing the Magistrate to reassess the respondent’s application without bias from previous observations. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent’s application under Section 25 was not maintainable as it effectively sought to overturn the previous order rather than request an alteration or modification, which is not permitted. The High Court and the Appellate Court were criticized for allowing the remand of the matter. Whereas, the respondent’s counsel claimed that the application was justified due to the appellant’s alleged misrepresentation of her financial status, stating that she was employed and not in need of maintenance.
The Court highlighted that Section 25(2) of the Domestic Violence Act allows for alteration, modification, or revocation of orders based on changes in circumstances, stated that “Section 25(2) of the Act contemplates an eventuality where an order passed under the Act can be altered, modified or revoked”. The criteria for such changes must arise post the initial order and can be of a pecuniary nature or other significant life changes affecting either party. Further, the Court clarified that any order-altering maintenance could only be prospective, not retrospective. The provisions of the Act aim to ensure effective protection for women against domestic violence while allowing for adjustments based on evolving circumstances, the court states “the Magistrate has to adjudge the change in the circumstances based on the material put forth by the parties in a case and having regard to the circumstances of the said case. A change in the circumstances under the Act may be of either a pecuniary nature”.
“an order passed under the Domestic Violence Act remains in force till the time that order is either set aside in an appeal under Section 29 of the Act, or altered/modified/revoked in terms of Section 25(2) of the Act by the Magistrate”, the court remarked. The court also noted, “The Act is a piece of Civil Code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background for a more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship”.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the invocation of Section 25 necessitates a demonstrable change in circumstances that arises after the original order and that any requests for retrospective application are not permissible. The matter is set for further proceedings to ensure a fair hearing and just resolution under the DV Act.
Case Title: S. Vijikumari vs. Mowneshwarachari C.
Citation: SLP(CRL.) NO. 5342 OF 2023
Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Picture Source :
