In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the conditions under which modifications can be sought regarding orders issued under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court asserted that requests for alteration, modification, or revocation of such orders—specifically those under Section 12—must be predicated on changes in circumstances that occur after the original order was issued.
The court emphasized, “For the invocation of Section 25(2), a change in circumstances post the order is mandatory.” This means that any adjustments to existing orders cannot relate to periods prior to the issuance of the original ruling, underscoring the necessity for a clear, subsequent shift in conditions to justify any modifications.
The case at hand involved an order from February 23, 2015, where a Magistrate awarded the wife a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 and a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. This order, having achieved finality, was later challenged by the husband in 2020 under Section 25(2), citing a change in circumstances. Although the initial application was dismissed, the Sessions Court instructed the Magistrate to reconsider the husband’s claims. The wife then sought redress from the High Court, which ultimately dismissed her revision.
In her arguments, the wife contended that the husband’s application essentially aimed to nullify the original 2015 order, a move she claimed was impermissible under Section 25(2). The husband’s request included demands for both the revocation of the previous order and a refund of the amounts awarded to the wife.
The Supreme Court firmly stated that there cannot be a retroactive annulment of the earlier order. Justice Nagarathna articulated that “unless there is a change in circumstances warranting modification or revocation due to a post-order change, the application lacks standing.” Furthermore, the Court noted that requests for the return of maintenance payments made prior to the new application were untenable.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the application filed under Section 25(2) was inadmissible as it sought to address matters preceding the original order. The judgment reinforced the principle that requests for revocation or alteration must align with the legislative spirit of the Domestic Violence Act, ensuring that the integrity of final orders remains intact unless substantiated by compelling, new evidence.