MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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