The Supreme Court in a recent verdict held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (DV Act), is a civil code that is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation or social background.
A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed that the DV Act was applicable to all women.
"The Act is a piece of Civil Code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background for a more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship," the top court said.
The top court made this observation in a verdict on a petition filed by a woman challenging a Karnataka High Court order in a matter related to maintenance and compensation.
The apex court held that alteration or modification or revocation of an order passed under Section 12 of the DV Act can be sought through Section 25(2) only on the basis of change of circumstances which took place after the passing of the order.
"In fact, the prayers sought for by the respondent are totally contrary to the spirit of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. While making such a prayer, the respondent could not have sought in substance for setting aside of the original order dated 23.02.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6/2014 and seeking refund of the maintenance amount which was paid to the appellant pursuant to the said order," the top court observed allowing the wife's appeal.
The woman had filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act which was allowed by a magistrate in February 2015 granting Rs 12,000 as monthly maintenance and Rs 1 lakh compensation to her.
In 2020, the husband filed an application under Section 25(2) of the DV Act seeking revocation or modification of the order owing to change in circumstance. Though Magistrate dismissed the husband's application, the Sessions Court directed the Magistrate to consider the same. The wife moved Karnataka High Court against the Session's Court's order. The Karnataka high court dismissed the plea by wife.
The counsel for husband submitted that the reason as to why the application under Section 25 of the Act was filed was owing to the fact that the wife had misrepresented the fact that she was in need of maintenance whereas she is an employed person and not at all in need of maintenance.
However, the top court said that there must be a change in the circumstances after the order being passed under the Act, it said, adding, that and order for alteration, modification or revocation operates prospectively and not retrospectively.
The Supreme Court in its verdict, referred to Section 25 of the DV Act and said it was evident that an aggrieved person or a respondent as defined under the Act can seek for alteration, modification or revocation of an order made under the provisions of the Act if there was a change in the circumstances as per sub-section (2) of section 25.
The top court said that a magistrate, while exercising discretion has to be satisfied that a change in the circumstances has occurred, which require such an order of alteration, modification or revocation.
It noted 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 which would justify an increase or decrease of the maintenance amount ordered by the magistrate.