Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.5. Meanwhile, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of CrPC, alleging that the Respondent had committed perjury by wilfully concealing material fact, especially pertaining to his income, in the proceedings before the Mahila Court. In parallel, the Respondent filed an application under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act seeking modification of the interim maintenance order, citing a "change in circumstances" and asserting financial difficulty. 4.6. On 18th November, 2023, during the hearing on the Respondent's application under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act, the Mahila Court passed two This is a digitally signed order.

8. It is trite that under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act, the court is empowered to revisit interim orders upon being satisfied that there exists a material "change in circumstances". The Appellate Court approached the issue within this statutory framework and undertook a prima facie assessment, as warranted at the interim stage. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28

10. This Court finds no error in the Appellate Court's approach regarding the pendency of the Petitioner's application under Section 340 of CrPC. The mere pendency of such an application does not ipso facto create a legal embargo on the determination of an application under Section 25(2) of the PWDV Act. These are distinct statutory remedies, operating in separate spheres. While the Section 340 CrPC application pertains to the initiation of criminal proceedings for perjury, the application under Section 25(2) is confined to evaluating whether a prima facie change in financial or other material circumstances justifies modification of an interim maintenance order. The Appellate Court was therefore under no obligation to await the outcome of the Petitioner's Section 340 CrPC proceedings before adjudicating the Respondent's application for modification. It is equally relevant that the Petitioner remains at liberty to pursue appropriate relief in her Section 340 proceedings, and no demonstrable prejudice has been shown to result from the Appellate Court's omission to expressly advert to that aspect.

15. The contention that the Petitioner's right to a fair trial was violated is equally devoid of merit. Although it is recorded in the Mahila Court's First Order that the Petitioner's exemption application was allowed, the Respondent's application under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act was This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 adjudicated vide a Second Order passed on the same date. It is evident from the record that the Petitioner had been appearing in earlier hearings relating to the Section 25(2) application, thereby dispelling any suggestion that she was denied an opportunity of being heard. Further, the Appellate Court granted her full opportunity to contest the modification application, raise objections, and file rebuttal material. The impugned judgment, having returned findings adverse to the Petitioner on merits, cannot now be re- agitated in revision, particularly when this Court is exercising limited revisional jurisdiction.