Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Maintenance Cannot Be Reclaimed Retroactively in Domestic Violence Cases: Supreme Court

01 October 2024 6:48 PM

By: sayum


An order for revocation can only apply prospectively, not to periods before the order. Supreme Court of India in S Vijikumari v. Mouneshwarachari C, ruled that maintenance already paid under a domestic violence order cannot be reclaimed retrospectively. The Court, presided by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh, set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision to remand the matter to the Magistrate, holding that any modification under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act can only apply prospectively, following a change in circumstances after the original order.

The appellant, S Vijikumari, was awarded maintenance of ₹12,000 per month in 2015 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The respondent, her husband Mouneshwarachari, filed an application under Section 25 of the Act, claiming that the maintenance should be revoked due to the wife's alleged employment and misrepresentation. He sought a refund of the entire amount paid since the original order.

The central issue was whether the respondent could seek a refund of maintenance already paid by claiming a change in circumstances. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 25(2) of the Domestic Violence Act allows for such retroactive modifications.

Justice Nagarathna clarified that any alteration, modification, or revocation under Section 25(2) of the Act can only apply from the date the application is made, not retrospectively. The Court emphasized that the respondent's request for a refund of the entire amount paid since 2015 was not maintainable, as the original order had attained finality and could not be undone.

"Revocation or modification of maintenance can only apply prospectively; it cannot relate to periods before the application."

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's remand order and dismissed the respondent’s application for a refund of maintenance. However, it allowed the respondent to file a fresh application for revocation or modification of the maintenance order, but only prospectively.

Date of Decision: September 10, 2024

S Vijikumari v. Mouneshwarachari C​.

Latest Legal News