DV Act Protects All Women: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, applies to all women in India, regardless of their religious or social backgrounds. The bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, emphasized that the Act serves as a civil code aimed at ensuring the protection of women from domestic violence, irrespective of their religion or social status.

"The Act is a piece of civil legislation applicable to every woman in India, offering more effective protection of their rights guaranteed under the Constitution," the bench stated.

This ruling came in response to an appeal filed by a woman challenging a Karnataka High Court decision regarding the grant of maintenance and compensation. The woman had originally been awarded ₹12,000 per month in maintenance and ₹1 lakh in compensation by a magistrate in February 2015, under Section 12 of the Act. However, her husband challenged the decision, leading to a protracted legal battle.

The Supreme Court noted that the husband's appeal had been dismissed due to a delay but was later allowed by an appellate court, which directed the magistrate to reconsider the case after both parties had presented further evidence. The woman, dissatisfied with the appellate court’s decision, moved to the High Court, which upheld the order to re-examine the case in April last year.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court referred to section 25 of the Act, which allows for the alteration, modification, or revocation of orders if there is a significant change in circumstances. The bench clarified that changes in the cost of living or income could warrant such a modification, not just for the respondent (the husband) but also for the aggrieved person (the wife).

However, the Court emphasised that section 25(2) of the Act applies only when there is a change in circumstances after the original order has been passed. It also ruled that any modifications made under this section would apply prospectively, not retroactively, meaning that the husband could not seek a refund of amounts already paid under the original order.

The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the orders of the Karnataka High Court and the first appellate court, dismissing the husband's application. However, the bench allowed the husband the option to file a fresh application under section 25 if circumstances warrant it in the future.