A bench consisting of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh emphasized that the legislation is designed to effectively safeguard the constitutional rights of women and to protect victims of domestic violence within domestic relationships.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court affirmed today (26th Sept) that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a civil statute applicable to all women in India, regardless of their religious or social backgrounds.
A bench consisting of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh emphasized that the legislation is designed to effectively safeguard the constitutional rights of women and to protect victims of domestic violence within domestic relationships.
This ruling arose from an appeal by a woman contesting a Karnataka High Court decision regarding maintenance and compensation. The woman had previously filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act, which was granted by a magistrate in February 2015, awarding her a monthly maintenance of ₹12,000 and ₹1 lakh in compensation. The husband appealed this decision, but his appeal was dismissed by the appellate court due to delays. Subsequently, he submitted another application under Section 25 of the Act, concerning the duration and modification of orders, which was also dismissed by the magistrate. The husband then appealed to the appellate court, which allowed his appeal and remanded the case back to the magistrate, instructing that both parties be given the opportunity to present their evidence.
The Supreme Court noted that the woman, dissatisfied with the previous ruling, approached the High Court, which dismissed her petition in April of last year and directed the magistrate to consider the man’s application under Section 25 of the Act.
In its decision, the apex court highlighted Section 25, indicating that an aggrieved person or respondent, as defined in the Act, can request the alteration, modification, or revocation of an order if there has been a change in circumstances, as specified in subsection (2) of Section 25.
The bench stated that when exercising discretion under Section 25(2), a magistrate must be convinced that a change in circumstances has occurred that warrants a modification or revocation of the order. Changes may involve financial factors, such as variations in the income of either party, or other circumstances that could justify an increase or decrease in the maintenance amount set by the magistrate.
The Court emphasized that the language of the provision is broad enough to include considerations like the cost of living and the parties’ income. Furthermore, changes in circumstances may pertain not only to the respondent but also to the aggrieved party.
However, the Court clarified that for Section 25(2) to be invoked, the change in circumstances must occur after the initial order was issued. Thus, any alteration, modification, or revocation would have a prospective effect, not a retrospective one. Therefore, the husband cannot seek retrospective applicability to request a refund of amounts already paid according to the original order.
The bench set aside the decisions of the High Court and the first appellate court, dismissing the man’s application. However, it granted the respondent (the man) the option to file a new application under Section 25 of the Act if he chooses to do so.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
