Non-payment of maintenance under the D.V. Act does not fall within penal provisions of Section 31, which strictly applies to violations of protection orders under Section 18.

ORDER :

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 15003/2007 by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural district whereunder order dated 28.01.2017 passed in PCR No. 316/2016 by Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Devanahalli, convicting respondent - accused and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months or to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- payable to the petitioner came to be set aside.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

3. Facts in brief are that, the petitioner - complainant filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the `D.V. Act’) seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, to return the gold jewelry and other reliefs. Along with the main petition, petitioner had also filed an application under Section 2 3(2) of the D.V. Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month for herself and for the child. After service of notice, respondent appeared through his counsel and sought time for filing objections. On 22.11.2014, learned Magistrate passed an order granting interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of petition till the disposal of the petition. on 05.12.2014 respondent paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- and sought time to pay balance amount. Thereafter, the matter was referred to conciliation, but not settled. On 20.08.2015 petitioner filed an application under Section 3 1 of the D.V. Act praying to take cognizance against the respondent for breach of interim protection order. Respondent filed objections to the said application. On 15.06.2016, learned Magistrate directed the office to register the P.C.R. and P.C.R. No. 316/2016 came to be registered. Enquiry was conducted. Learned Magistrate passed an order on 28.01.2017, convicting the respondent for offence punishable under Section 3 1 of the D.V. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months or to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. Agreed by the said order, respondent filed an appeal before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 15003/2017. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments on both sides, has passed impugned judgment, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 28.01.2017 passed in P.C.R. No. 316/2016 by Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Devanahalli.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the order of interim maintenance is a protection order and as the said order is not complied with by respondent he is liable for punishment under Section 3 1 of the D.V. Act. He further contended that the appellate Court has not followed the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vincent Shanthakumar Vs. Christina Geetha Rani and others , 2015 (2) KCCR 1776 . He further submits that as order on interim main