In Brief
A wife obtained a maintenance order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The husband later applied under Section 25 of the Act seeking to revoke the order and recover all amounts paid, claiming the wife had committed fraud by misrepresenting her employment status. The Supreme Court held that applications under Section 25 can only modify or revoke orders prospectively, based on changes in circumstances occurring after the original order. The husband's plea to recover past payments was rejected as it sought retrospective effect contrary to the statute's scope. The Court set aside the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the husband's application, while preserving his right to file a fresh application relating to future periods.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.