An order under Section 25(2) of the DV Act modifying interim maintenance is not directly appealable under Section 29, impacting the Petitioner's rights.

ORDER :

CRL. REV.P. (MAT.) 114/2025

1. The present petition impugns order dated 25^th February, 2025, passed by the Sessions Court (ASJ-02), Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Cr. Appeal No. CA 64/2024, rejecting the Petitioner’s appeal on the ground of maintainability.

2. Briefly stated, the factual background of the case is as follows:

2.1. On an application filed by the Petitioner, the MM, Mahila Court-02 Dwarka Courts, Delhi passed an order dated 7^th September, 2020 awarding interim maintenance of INR 1 lakh to the Petitioner. The said order was challenged by both the Petitioner as well as the Respondent under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, [“DV Act”] These appeals were decided by a common order dated 1^st October, 2021, upholding the order of interim maintenance dated 7^th September, 2020. Both the parties have now assailed the order dated 1^st October, 2021 by filing revision petitions before this Court bearing no. CRL. REV. P. 363/2021 and CRL.REV. P. 43/2022, which are currently pending consideration.

2.2. In the meantime, the Respondent filed an application under Section 25(2) of the DV Act, contending that there has been a change in the financial position. Pursuant to this, the MM, vide order dated 18^th November, 2023, reduced the interim maintenance previously awarded to the Petitioner to INR 15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application, i.e., w.e.f.20^th May, 2022 till the final disposal of the petition.

2.3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before the Court of ASJ-02, Dwarka Courts, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 25^th February, 2025.

3. By the impugned order, the ASJ has essentially held that an order passed under Section 25(2) of the DV Act is not directly appealable, as it only allows for alteration/ modification or revocation of a previous order based on a change in circumstances, and does not constitute a new and independent order that can be appealed against.

4. The Petitioner, who appears through video conferencing, argues that the view taken by the ASJ is erroneous and flawed. She submits that the impugned order, modifying the interim order under Section 25(2) of the DV Act, significantly impacts her right and therefore, should be subject to appeal under Section 29 of the Act. She submits that under Section 29 of the Act, an appeal lies before the Court of Session against any order of the Magistrate, which includes an order passed under Section 25(2) of the DV Act. She further submits that the ASJ’s on the Supreme Court judgment in S. Vijaykumari v. Mowneshwarachari C., [2024 INSC 732] is misconceived, as the said judgment does not hold that the Petitioner is precluded from availing her statutory right to file an appeal under Section 29 against an order under Section 25(2) of the Act.

5. Issue notice. Mr. Ajit Kumar, counsel for Respondent, accepts notice.Reply, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

6. Re-notify on 21^st April, 2025.

CRL.M.A. 7655/2025 (for interim stay of the order dated 18^th November, 2023)

7. Through this application, pending final adjudication of the above- captioned revision petition, the Petitioner seeks stay of the operation of the order dated 18^th November, 2023, passed by the Mahila Court-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi reducing the interim maintenance awarded to her from INR 1 lakh per month to INR 15,000/- per month.

8. In the opinion of the Court, granting the interim order at this stage would essentially amount to allowing the present petition. Moreover, as noted above, the ASJ, in the impugned order, has not decided the case on merits and has merely rejected the challenge on jurisdictional ground.

9. Therefore, the Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant any interim order. Such a request shall be considered once the Respondent has been given an opportunity to respond the present revision petition.

10. Issue notice. Mr. Ajit Kumar, counsel for Respondent, ac