A) Abstract / Headnote
This case revolves around the invocation of Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent, the husband of the appellant, filed an application seeking the revocation of maintenance and compensation orders awarded to his wife on the grounds of alleged fraud. The Court held that any modification, alteration, or revocation under Section 25(2) must relate to circumstances occurring post the order, not retroactively. The respondent’s claims for setting aside the prior order and a refund of maintenance paid were deemed non-maintainable, as the original order had already attained finality. The judgment reaffirms the procedural safeguards and principles underlying maintenance and women’s protection under domestic violence law.
Keywords
- Domestic Violence Act
- Maintenance Orders
- Section 25(2)
- Fraud Allegation
- Retrospective Relief
B) Case Details
- i. Judgement Cause Title: S. Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C
- ii. Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3989 of 2024
- iii. Judgement Date: 10 September 2024
- iv. Court: Supreme Court of India
- v. Quorum: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- vi. Author: Justice B.V. Nagarathna
- vii. Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 45; 2024 INSC 732
- viii. Legal Provisions Involved:
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 and Section 25(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 and Section 127
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 146(1)
- ix. Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly
- x. Related Legal Subjects: Criminal Law, Family Law
C) Introduction and Background of Judgement
The appeal arose from a challenge to the Karnataka High Court’s order affirming the remand of a Section 25(2) application to the Magistrate. The respondent’s application sought not only the revocation of maintenance on alleged fraud grounds but also a refund of sums already paid. These claims, framed under Section 25(2), raised questions about the retrospective application of orders and the procedural rigor required in maintenance disputes under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
D) Facts of the Case
- The appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act, seeking maintenance and compensation, which was allowed in 2015. The Magistrate awarded ₹12,000 per month and ₹1,00,000 compensation.
- The respondent-husband did not present evidence in the original proceedings.
- Subsequent appeals by the respondent were dismissed due to procedural delays, allowing the original order to attain finality.
- The respondent later filed an application under Section 25(2), alleging that the appellant had concealed her employment status and sought a refund of maintenance already paid.
- The High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Magistrate.
- The Supreme Court intervened after the appellant challenged this remand order.
E) Legal Issues Raised
- i. Whether an application under Section 25(2) can revoke or alter orders retroactively?
- ii. Whether claims for maintenance refund are legally sustainable under the Act?
- iii. The procedural integrity of maintenance proceedings in light of fraud allegations.
F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments
- i. The appellant contended that Section 25(2) permits alteration or modification only for post-order circumstances. Retroactive changes are prohibited.
- ii. The application sought to unsettle a finalized maintenance order, violating principles of finality and fairness.
- iii. The claim for a refund of maintenance was untenable, as it negated the statutory purpose of providing subsistence to vulnerable women.
- iv. The Magistrate’s earlier dismissal of the application was justified and warranted no remand.
G) Respondent’s Arguments
- i. The respondent alleged that the appellant had concealed material facts about her employment status, constituting fraud.
- ii. He sought a refund, arguing that the maintenance order was secured under misrepresentation.
- iii. The respondent defended the remand, emphasizing the need for a factual inquiry into the alleged fraud.
H) Related Legal Provisions
- i. Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Provides for reliefs including maintenance and protection.
- ii. Section 25(2), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Permits modification or revocation of orders due to post-order changes in circumstances.
- iii. Section 125 and Section 127, CrPC: Analogous provisions for maintenance adjustments based on changed circumstances.
- iv. Section 146(1), BNSS, 2023: Similar language on maintenance adjustments under the new procedural framework.
I) Judgement
a. Ratio Decidendi
- Applications under Section 25(2) cannot operate retroactively to unsettle finalized orders. Reliefs must be limited to post-order changes in circumstances.
- Claims for refund of maintenance contravene the purpose of the Act, which is to provide subsistence to women in vulnerable situations.
b. Obiter Dicta
- The Court underscored the civil nature of the Act, applicable across all social and religious demographics to safeguard women’s rights.
c. Guidelines
- Alteration, modification, or revocation of maintenance orders under Section 25(2) must be supported by evidence of post-order changes.
- Courts must ensure procedural fairness and avoid retrospective disruption of finalized maintenance claims.
J) Conclusion and Comments
This judgment strengthens the integrity of maintenance law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. By affirming the principle of finality in orders, it provides clarity on the scope of Section 25(2) and safeguards against abuse of procedural provisions by non-participating respondents.
K) References
- Alexander Sambath Abner vs. Miron Lede, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 2851.
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
