Supreme Court: Section 25(2) of Domestic Violence Act Invocable Only Upon Change in Circumstances After Section 12 Order"

S. Vijikumari vs. Mowneshwarachari C
Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5342 of 2023)

Facts of the Case:

1. Parties Involved: The case involved a dispute between a wife and husband under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

2. Initial Order Under Section 12: The wife had earlier filed a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, which resulted in an order favoring her, granting relief in terms of protection, maintenance, or residence.

3. Subsequent Petition Under Section 25(2): The husband later filed an application under Section 25(2) of the DV Act, seeking modification of the relief granted in the Section 12 order.

4. Ground for the Appeal: The husband argued for modification of the existing order, but the main legal issue was whether such modification could be sought without demonstrating any change in circumstances since the original order was passed.
   

Legal Points Considered:

1. Interpretation of Section 25(2) of DV Act: Section 25(2) allows a party to apply for modification or revocation of an order under the DV Act. However, the court clarified that such an application can only be entertained when there is a change in circumstances after the order under Section 12 has been passed.

2. Purpose of Section 25(2): The court noted that the provision is intended to address situations where the circumstances have materially changed, justifying a review or modification of the original relief order.

3. Requirement of Changed Circumstances: The Supreme Court emphasized that the party seeking modification must show evidence of a significant change in circumstances that affects the earlier relief granted. Without such evidence, a Section 25(2) petition cannot be invoked.

4. Judicial Precedents: The Court referenced prior rulings where similar provisions in other laws were applied, reaffirming that without new developments, revisiting or altering settled orders would undermine the stability of judicial decisions.

5. Application of Principles: The court examined the facts presented and found no material change in circumstances since the Section 12 order had been passed, and thus, the husband’s plea under Section 25(2) was dismissed.

Judgment and Rationale:

The Supreme Court dismissed the husband's application under Section 25(2), holding that modification or alteration of the relief granted under Section 12 could only be justified if there were new, material changes in circumstances that occurred after the original order. Since the husband failed to prove any such changes, the Court ruled that there was no legal basis for invoking Section 25(2).

Summary:

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 25(2) of the Domestic Violence Act can only be invoked when there is a subsequent change in circumstances after an order under Section 12 has been passed. This ruling ensures that the finality of relief granted under the DV Act is respected unless substantial new evidence warrants reconsideration, thereby protecting the stability of judicial orders.