IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process

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​.

Similar News