Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Raj) 578

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Noorjahan Bano - Appellant
Versus
Altaf and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 25 of 2011.
Decided On : 11-01-2013

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Rakesh Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents No. 1:N.L. Joshi, Advocate.

Breach of an order of monetary relief does not make a person liable for prosecution under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Headnote:
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Breach of Order of Monetary Relief
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition against the order quashing the cognizance taken against the respondent for the offence under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the breach of an order of monetary relief cannot make a person liable for prosecution under Section 31 of the Act, based on the precedent set in the case of Kanchan (Smt.) v. Vikramjeet Setiya.
Issues: Interference with the order quashing the cognizance under Section 31 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Breach of an order of monetary relief does not warrant prosecution under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Final Decision: The misc. petition and the stay petition were dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in revision, whereby, he has quashed the orders dated 21.8.2009 and 1.8.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu taking cognizance against the respondent No. 1 for the offence under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned passed by the learned Courts below.

3. This Court whilst considering Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence in the case of Kanchan (Smt.) v. Vikramjeet Setiya, reported in 2012(4) WLN 210 (Raj.) has held that the breach of an order of monetary relief cannot make a person liable for prosecution under Section 31 of the Act. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the learned Revisional Court does not call for any interference by this Court.

4. Resultantly, this misc. petition as well as the stay petition being bereft of any force are hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(Raj) 578

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTSandeep Mehta, J.Noorjahan Bano - AppellantVersusAltaf and Anr. - RespondentS.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 25 of 2011.Decided On : 11-01-2013

Breach of an order of monetary relief does not make a person liable for prosecution under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Noorjahan Bano - Appellant
Versus
Altaf and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 25 of 2011.
Decided On : 11-01-2013