IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Paul Joseph S/o Joseph - Petitioner
Versus
Thresiakutty @ Theresa - Respondent
O.P. (Crl.) No. 617 of 2018, W.P. (C) No. 37816 of 2017
Decided On : 19-02-2025
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12 and 22 - Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 - Demand notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act for enforcement of monetary reliefs granted under the Domestic Violence Act are unsustainable as the Act does not apply to such reliefs. (Paras 5, 10, 11)
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 128 - The procedure under Section 128 can only be applied for maintenance orders, not for orders under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges demand notices issued for recovery of monetary reliefs awarded to the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act, arguing that the Revenue Recovery Act is not applicable. (Para 5)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked for recovery of amounts under the Domestic Violence Act, and the demand notices are set aside. (Paras 11, 12)
Issues: The main issues include whether the Revenue Recovery Act can be applied for recovery of monetary reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act and the appropriateness of the enforcement procedure. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Revenue Recovery Act is not applicable for enforcing monetary reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing that the enforcement must follow the specific provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Writ petition allowed; demand notices set aside.
Key Points: - The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be used to enforce monetary reliefs granted under the Domestic Violence Act; demand notices under the Act are unsustainable. (!) (!) - Section 128 CrPC can be applied for maintenance orders, but not for enforcement of orders under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act; its use to enforce D.V. Act monetary reliefs is improper. (!) (!) - Even if enforcement is permissible under Section 125 CrPC, Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked to realize monetary reliefs under the D.V. Act due to lack of enabling notification under Section 71; the enforcement must follow the specific provisions of the D.V. Act. (!) (!) - The court held that Ext.P3(a) and P3(b) demand notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be sustained and are set aside; writ petition allowed. (!) (!) - The order clarifies that remedies available to the respondent for enforcement of reliefs granted by the Ext.P1 Order will not be affected, and the petitioner’s other remedies remain; O.P. stands dismissed. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
W.P. (C) No. 37816 of 2017
1. The petitioner is the previous husband of the 1st respondent and the respondent in M.C No.39/2011 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P3(a) and P3(b) demand notice issued in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Though notice was served on the 1st respondent/wife, there is no appearance before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Ext.P1 Order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, granting relief under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as per which Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded to compensate the mental harassment and cruelty to the respondent/wife by the petitioner/husband. Besides, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was also granted as compensation. The learned counsel would pinpoint that, no amount, whatsoever, was granted towards maintenance in Ext.P1 Order. In purported enforcement of the Ext.P1 Order, Ext.P2 petition, bearing Crl.M.P No.2694/2017, was preferred by the 1st respondent under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which petition, an Order has been passed. Pursuant to that, Exts. P3(a) and P3(b) demand notices were issued as per the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Learned counsel would highlight that, Section 128 can be pressed into service only for enforcing an Order of maintenance, or for that matter, an Order of interim maintenance and expenses of the proceedings thereof. The same cannot be applied in respect of an Order passed under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
6. Secondly, learned counsel would point out that, the Revenue Recovery Act can be pressed into service only in respect of any arrear of public revenue due on land, as defined under Section 2(a), or any public revenue due on land, as defined under Section 2(j). By virtue of Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, it is open for the Government to notify that the provisions of the Act will apply for recovery of amounts due to certain institutions or class of institutions, which procedure has not been, admittedly, adopted in the case of maintenance due to a wife, be it under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The provision for enforcement in respect of Orders passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is contained in Section 20, sub clause (6), and also under Section 31, of which the latter applies only in respect of protection Orders, and the former, in respect of monetary reliefs. Inviting the attention to Rule 6(5), it is the contention of the learned Counsel that the said rule can only be read and understood as confined to Orders passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, allowing maintenance; and not in respect of the other reliefs.
7. This application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that Rule 6(5) can be pressed into service for enforcement of any Order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, with respect to the power of the learned magistrate, even in a case where Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable, to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, no enabling provision could be pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also, the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court can only reject the contention that the procedure contemplated in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be pressed into service for enforcement of an Order granting monetary relief. Rule 6(5) is extracted herein;
“The applications under section 12 shall be dealt with and the
The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be used to enforce monetary reliefs granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
A husband's imprisonment for non-payment does not absolve his obligation to pay maintenance; ongoing enforcement is essential to protect the recipient's welfare.
Judicial Magistrates have the authority to issue non-bailable warrants for recovery of maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, and enforcement procedures can follow the Criminal Procedure Code.
Maintenance orders under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act can be enforced through attachment of both movable and immovable property.
The DV Act provides a broad scope of monetary relief, including maintenance for aggrieved persons and their children, and establishes the independent right of unmarried daughters to obtain maintenanc....
Maintenance – Unmarried daughter, whether Hindu or Muslim has right to obtain maintenance, irrespective of her age – Courts have to look for other laws applicable when question pertains to right to b....
Allegations of domestic violence must be proven for entitlement to reliefs under the DV Act, and the court may consider the respondent's financial resources in determining maintenance allowance.
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.
Section 20(d) authorises a Magistrate to grant maintenance for aggrieved person as well as her children.
Violation of monetary orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does not constitute an offence under Section 31, which applies only to breaches of protection orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.