The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a civil code applicable to all women in India, regardless of their religious or social background. The ruling underlines the Act’s role in providing a more effective protection of women’s rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made this observation while delivering a judgment on an appeal filed by a woman contesting a Karnataka High Court ruling. The case concerned the grant of maintenance and compensation under the Act, legislation designed to protect women from domestic abuse within a domestic relationship.

“The Act is a piece of civil code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background for a more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution,” the bench stated, reiterating the universal scope of the law.

Background of the case

The case in question involved a woman who had successfully petitioned under Section 12 of the Act, leading to a magistrate’s order in February 2015 granting her Rs 12,000 in monthly maintenance and Rs 1 lakh in compensation. The woman’s husband later sought to challenge this order, but his initial appeal was dismissed due to delay.

However, the husband subsequently filed an application under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act, which allows for the alteration or revocation of orders based on a change in circumstances. The appellate court allowed his appeal, remanding the case to the magistrate to reconsider the application. The woman, dissatisfied with this decision, took the matter to the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the appellate court's decision.

Guidance on Section 25

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, highlighted the importance of Section 25, which permits either the aggrieved person or the respondent to seek modifications to an order if there is a significant change in circumstances. These changes can be financial, such as variations in income, or relate to other life circumstances affecting the parties involved.

The court further clarified that any order for modification or revocation under Section 25(2) must be prospective, meaning it applies only from the date of the order onwards. The bench emphasised that the husband could not demand a retrospective change to reclaim maintenance already paid.

While the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court and the first appellate court’s rulings, it granted the husband the liberty to file a new application under Section 25, should there be further grounds to do so.