Supreme Court Denies Husband’s Request to Revoke Maintenance Order Under Domestic Violence Act

The case of S Vijikumari vs. Mowneshwarachari C is a critical ruling regarding the revocation of maintenance orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and ruled that an order granting maintenance cannot be revoked retrospectively unless there is a change in circumstances occurring after the initial order.

The judgment provides important legal clarity on the scope of Section 25(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, which deals with modification or revocation of maintenance orders.

Background of the Case

The appellant, S Vijikumari, is the wife of the respondent, Mowneshwarachari C. She had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, seeking maintenance. The Magistrate granted her:

Rs. 12,000 per month as maintenance
Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation

The husband did not contest this decision initially. However, years later, he filed an application under Section 25 of the Act, claiming that the maintenance order was obtained fraudulently and should be revoked.

Legal Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (S Vijikumari – Wife)

The husband’s application was not maintainable under Section 25(2) since it sought to set aside the original maintenance order rather than modify it based on a change in circumstances.
The maintenance order had already attained finality since the husband did not appeal the original order.
The order could only be modified if there was a change in circumstances after the order was passed, not based on past allegations.
The husband’s claim that she was employed and did not require maintenance was not raised during the initial proceedings and could not be used to invalidate the past order.

Arguments by the Respondent (Mowneshwarachari C – Husband)

The wife had misrepresented her financial status, falsely claiming to be unemployed while she was earning.
The maintenance order was obtained through fraud, and the entire amount paid should be refunded.
Section 25(2) of the Act allowed for revocation of maintenance orders when there was a change in circumstances.
Since the wife was employed, the order should be set aside completely, and she should return all payments received.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of Section 25(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, which states:

“If the Magistrate, on receipt of an application from the aggrieved person or the respondent, is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification, or revocation of any order made under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, pass such order, as he may deem appropriate.”

1. Can a Maintenance Order Be Set Aside Under Section 25?

The Court clarified that Section 25(2) only allows modification or revocation of a maintenance order if there is a change in circumstances after the order was passed. It does not permit complete cancellation of an order based on past allegations.

2. Can a Husband Demand a Refund of Past Maintenance?

The Court ruled that maintenance payments cannot be reversed retrospectively. Any modification of an order can only apply from the date the modification request is filed, not retroactively.

3. Was the Husband’s Request Maintainable?

The Court found that the husband’s application:

Did not cite any new circumstances occurring after the maintenance order.
Was an attempt to reopen a settled case rather than seek modification.
Did not qualify as a valid request under Section 25(2).

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling:

The husband’s application under Section 25(2) was not maintainable.
The maintenance order remains in force, and the husband cannot seek a refund of payments already made.
The husband is free to file a fresh application if he can prove a valid change in circumstances occurring after the order.

This ruling reinforces the protection of women under the Domestic Violence Act and ensures that maintenance orders cannot be unfairly revoked based on past claims.

Petitioner Name: S Vijikumari.
Respondent Name: Mowneshwarachari C.
Judgment By: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
Place Of Incident: Bengaluru, Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 10-09-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: s-vijikumari-vs-mowneshwarachari-c-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-09-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Alimony and Maintenance
See all petitions in Domestic Violence
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in Judgment by N. Kotiswar Singh
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Divorce Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Divorce Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Divorce Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Divorce Cases Category