Supreme Court Ruling: Conditions for Alteration or Revocation of Maintenance Orders Under DV Act

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India provided a detailed explanation of the conditions under which Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) can be invoked. The ruling outlines the scope of the provision, which allows a party to seek alteration, modification, or revocation of an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act, typically related to maintenance, residence, protection, and other reliefs.

Broad Scope of Section 25(2) of the DV Act

• The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh, emphasized that the scope of Section 25(2) is broad enough to address all types of orders passed under the Act.
• This provision enables the Magistrate to reconsider orders related to maintenance, residence, and protection, among others, provided that there has been a change in circumstances since the original order.

Circumstances Warranting Alteration or Modification

• The Court clarified that for an application under Section 25(2) to be successful, there must be a change in circumstances after the Section 12 order was passed.
• The Court explained, “A change in the circumstances under the Act may be of either a pecuniary nature, such as a change in the income of the respondent or an aggrieved person or it could be a change in other circumstances of the party paying or receiving the allowance.”
• The Court further noted that the provision’s phrasing is broad enough to include cost of living, income variations, or other circumstantial changes that would warrant revisiting the relief initially granted by the Magistrate.

Change in Circumstances Can Apply to Both Parties

• Importantly, the Court highlighted that the change in circumstances need not only apply to the respondent but can also pertain to the aggrieved person.
• For example, the Court observed that a change in financial circumstances—such as a reduction or increase in the husband’s income—could justify an alteration in the maintenance amount. Similarly, life changes experienced by either the husband or wife since the original maintenance order could also serve as grounds for modification.

No Retrospective Application of Section 25(2)

• The judgment emphasized that the provision under Section 25(2) cannot be applied retrospectively to claim refunds or adjustments for periods before the original order under Section 12 was passed.
• The Court stated, “The revocation of an order, inter alia, under Section 12 of the Act sought by a party cannot relate to a period prior to such an order being passed.” Thus, applicants cannot seek to alter or revoke an order based on circumstances that existed before the initial order.

Click to Read: S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C