Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C has held that the order for modification/ alteration / or setting aside can only be passed when there is change in the circumstances subsequent to the order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV) and not otherwise. 

What was the Background of the S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C   Case? 

• In this case, the appellate was the wife of the respondent. 
• The appellant filed a petition before the Family Court under Section 12 of the DV Act. 
• The same was allowed and was granted Rs. 12000/- for maintenance and Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation. 
• The respondent appealed the decision before the Appellate Court under Section 29 of the DV Act which was dismissed due to delay in filing of the appeal. 
• The respondent filed an application before the Trail Court under Section 25 of the DV Act which was dismissed. 
• Aggrieved by the decision, the Respondent filed the appeal before the Karnataka High Court under Section 29 of the DV Act which was allowed by the High Court and the same was remanded to the lower court for further consideration of the application under Section 25 of the DV Act. 
• The respondent sought to set aside the order of the Family court in regard to the maintenance and was also seeking refund of the paid amount. 
• The Respondent argued that the wife (appellant) was earning more than the respondent and therefore the maintenance relief should not be granted to her. 
• The acceptance of the application gave the opportunity to both the parties to produce evidences and for disposing of the application in accordance with the law. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the Appellate filed the Criminal Revision Petition before the Karnataka High Court which got dismissed. 
• Aggrieved by the same the Appellate filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that: 
  • As per Section 25 (2) of the DV Act if there is any change in the circumstance, the same could be a ground for seeking alteration, modification or revocation of such an order. 
  • The scope of Section 25(2) of the DV Act is broad enough to deal with all nature of orders passed under the Act, which may include orders of maintenance, residence, protection, etc. 
  • an order passed under the DV Act remains in force till the time that order is either set aside in an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act or altered/modified/revoked in terms of Section 25(2) of the DV Act by the Magistrate. 
  • An order cannot be set aside which is being passed prior to the application made by the respondent as per the provisions of Section 25 of the DV Act. 
• The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the application of the respondent and held that the order can be set aside as per Section 25 of the DV Act only when there is a change in the circumstances after passing of the order. 

What is Section 25 of the DV Act? 

• Section 25 of the DV Act states the provision regarding Duration and alteration of orders. 
• Under clause (1) it states that a protection order made under section 18 shall be in force till the aggrieved person applies for discharge. 
• Under Clause (2) it states that an aggrieved person or a respondent as defined under the Act can seek alteration, modification or revocation of an order made under the provisions of the Act if there is a change in the circumstances. 
• The reasons of the modification need to be recorded in writing by the magistrate. 

Landmark Judgement 

• Alexander Sambath Abner v. Miron Lede (2009):  
  • In this case it was held that an order for alteration, modification or revocation operates prospectively and not retrospectively. 
• Kunapareddy Alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr. (2016) 
  • In this case the Supreme Court, wherein it was held the power to allow amendment to applications filed under the DV Act provided, no prejudice was caused to the other side. It was held that amendments could be allowed in circumstances where such amendment was necessary in light of subsequent events or to avoid multiplicity of litigation.