SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ker) 916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Suneesh, S/o. Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 5871 of 2022
Decided on : 05-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)
For the Respondent: M.B.SHYNI, JOHN K.GEORGE, SRI.G.SUDHEER

Point of Law: Section 20(d) authorises a Magistrate to grant maintenance for aggrieved person as well as her children.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 125 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 20, (4), (d), 31, 18, 19, 23, 3 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 - Rule 6(5) - Maintenance Allowance - Refusal to Pay - Whether non payment of maintenance allowance in refusal to pay would amount to breach of protection order and for which, penal proceedings under Section 31 of D.V Act can be invoked – It was found that non payment of maintenance is a breach of protection order and hence Section 31 of D.V Act can be invoked - Para 11.

Finding of the Court :

A person when ordered to pay a specified amount on every month as maintenance or interim maintenance and under Section 20(4) of D.V Act, if he fails to pay same on completion of every month for justified/unavoidable reasons, is it fair to hold that said failure and omission would be penalised under Section 31 of D.V Act - Similar is position inasmuch as other orders excluding order under Section 18 - Moreover, if such a wide interpretation is given, Courts will be over-flooded with cases under Section 31 of D.V Act and said situation cannot said to have intended by legislature - Therefore, Court cannot overturn legislative wisdom to hold that a 'monetary relief such as payment of maintenance, if disobeyed, same also would attract significant penalty under Section 31 of D.V Act, treating same as breach of 'protection order' or 'interim protection order'- Therefore, it is held that penalty provided under Section 31 of D.V Act would attract only for breach of protection orders passed under Section 18 of D.V Act and same would not apply to maintenance orders under Section 20 of Act - Holding so, prayer in this petition is liable to be allowed.

Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER :

Annexure-A1 final report in C.C.No.1483/2019 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E.O), Ernakulam, sought to be quashed in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C' for short). The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case. Respondents herein are the State of Kerala as well as the defacto complainant in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel Advocate James Abraham, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. The question arises for consideration is, whether non payment of maintenance allowance in refusal to pay the same based on a monetary relief granted under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `D.V Act' for convenience) would amount to breach of protection order and for which, penal proceedings under Section 31 of the D.V Act can be invoked?

4. The crux of the dispute is that in an application filed under Section 12 of the D.V Act filed by the 2nd respondent, who is the mother of the petitioner herein, the learned Magistrate Court directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.25,000/-as monthly maintenance to the 2nd respondent herein and her daughter, to meet their expenses. Though the petitioner herein paid the same for a period of 3 months, thereafter he defaulted the payment. On that premise, acting on the complaint of the 2nd respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 31 of the D.V Act Crime No.66/2018 was registered. On completion of investigation, final report was filed. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the said offence and the matter has been pending as C.C.1483/2019.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner zealously argued highlighting the distinction between `protections orders' provided under Section 18 of the D.V Act and `monetary reliefs' provided under Section 20 of the D.V Act. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that Section 31 does not provide that an order passed under Section 19 or 20, if it is violated, would enable the Magistrate to take cognizance for the said offence. He has read out Section 31 of D.V Act in this regard.

6. Whereas the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that in a decision reported in [2015 KHC 2333 : 2015 (2) KLD 184 : AIR 2015 NOC 557 : 2015 CriLJ 1874], Vincent Shanthakumar v. Christina Geetha Rani & anr., a Single Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that an order granting maintenance though under Section 23 of the Act, if it is passed ex parte or after hearing the parties to the proceedings and even after suffering that order, with knowledge of the order, if the respondent intentionally violates or abuses such an order, it shall be taken as an order deemed to have been passed to prohibit the domestic violence and to protect the victim under Section 18 of the Act, such violation is punishable under Section 31 of the Act, as long as such an order is enforceable, unless such order is vacated or cancelled by the competent Court.

7. Similarly, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent placed a Division Bench ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in [2018 KHC 3751 : 2018 CriLJ 2545], Surya Prakash v. Rachna to buttress the said point. In the said decision, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the definition of `Domestic Violence', as provided under Section 3 of the D.V Act and finally held in para.16 as under:

    “S.20 of the Act deals with grant of monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and the losses suffered by aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. Such provision enlarges the scope of domestic violence as defined in S.3 of the Act. In terms of S.3 of the Act, the “economic abuse” includes deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources, payment of rental related to shared household and mainten

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top