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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Linu Joseph, S/o. Joseph Kuttickal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Representing SHO, Aluva West Police Station, Ernakulam & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.MC No. 9809 of 2023
Decided On : 24-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ameer K.M., Fasna T.Y., Hazeena Beevi N.H.
For the Respondents: Sri. M.P. Prasanth, Public Prosecutor, T.M. Raman Kartha, Manjula Nair, M.S. Soujath, Revathy M.A., Greeshma T.G., Sneha Brigit Prince.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act applies only to breaches of protection orders under Section 18, not to maintenance orders under Section 20.

Headnote:

(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 31 – Quashing of complaint – The petitioner sought to quash a complaint alleging domestic violence due to non-payment of maintenance. The court held that Section 31 applies only to breaches of protection orders under Section 18, not to maintenance orders under Section 20. (Paras 4, 5, 7)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – The court emphasized that the prosecution was unwarranted as the allegations did not constitute a prima facie case under the Domestic Violence Act. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case: The petitioner, accused of domestic violence, sought to quash a complaint alleging economic abuse due to non-payment of maintenance, claiming it was not a breach of a protection order.

Findings of Court: The court found that the prosecution was unwarranted as the allegations did not fall under the purview of Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether non-payment of maintenance constitutes a breach of a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 31 applies solely to breaches of protection orders and not to maintenance orders, thus quashing the complaint.

Result: Petition allowed; all proceedings quashed.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused in C.C.No.163/2022 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Aluva, and the prayers are as under;

    (i) quash Annexure-A1 Complaint and all further proceedings pursuant to the same on the files of the Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Aluva as against the petitioner, so as to secure the ends of justice;

(ii) quash Annexure -A6 order passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva-II in CMP-1203/23 in CC 163/22 dated 29.09.2023;

(iii) pass an order relaxing/ modifying the bail condition No.2 in the Annexure A2 imposed by the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva with respect to surrendering the passport and Emergency Certificate;

(iv) Grant such other reliefs deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court;

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the additional 2nd respondent/the complainant. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant records.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act by the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant, in a case arose out of Crl.M.P.No.1083/2014 filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva. The sum and substance of the allegation, as could be read out from paragraph 3 of the complaint is as under;

    “3. Though the respondents are restrained from committing any Acts of domestic violence, the respondents committed domestic violence by committing economic abuse, that is by depriving the financial resources to which the complainant is entitled under the law and under the custom and which I and the child require out of necessity, including house hold necessities: By the order dated 9/3/2012 the respondents, especially the 1 respondent was bound to support the complainant and the child financially. He did not do so. Such omission amounts to act of violence as per the statute which is an offence under Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and punishable under Section 31 of the Act.”

4. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed a decision of this Court, reported in Suneesh v. State of Kerala and another [2022 (7) KHC 577] contending that this crime was registered alleging non-payment of maintenance in view of the interim order passed by the Magistrate. In Suneesh's case (supra), this Court considered the issue at length and paragraphs 10 and 15 held as under;

    10. Whereas the decisions highlighted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would go to show that Section 31 would apply in cases covered by Sections 18 and 20 also. In this context, it is relevant to refer Sections 18, 19, 20 and 31 of the D.V Act for easy reference and the same are extracted hereunder:

“18. Protection orders.—The Magistrate may, after giving the aggrieved person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place, pass a protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibit the respondent from—

(a) committing any act of domestic violence;

(b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence;

(c) entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or, if the person aggrieved is a child, its school or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person;

(d) attempting to communicate in any form, whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact;

(e) alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties, jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the l

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