HEMANT GUPTA, CJ.

1. The present petition has been placed before this Bench in view of the reference made by the learned Single Bench on 11.09.2015 for the opinion on the following questions:-

“(i) Whether non-payment of maintenance allowance can be treated to be a breach of 'protection order' or 'interim protection order'? If it is not a breach of said orders, whether Section 31 of the DV Act can be invoked?

(ii) Whether any other breach of any provision of the DV Act, which does not fall within the ambit of 'protection order' or 'interim protection order', can be a basis to invoke Section 31 of the Act?

(iii) Whether the order passed in Sunil @ Sonu vs. Sarita Chawla (Smt.), reported in 2009 (5) MPHT 319, is in accordance with the scheme of DV Act?”

2. None appeared for the parties on number of dates and, therefore, amicus were appointed to decide the important questions of law arising from the order passed by the learned Single Bench.

3. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the respondent-wife filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) against her husband inter alia on the ground that her marriage took place on 11.05.2011 and she gave birth to a baby boy. The learned trial Court passed an order on 30.10.2013 that the non-applicant/ present petitioner and his family members will not harass the wife and she be also paid Rs.2,500/-per month as maintenance and Rs.20,000/-as compensation. An appeal was filed against the said order which was partly allowed on 11.09.2014 whereby the amount of compensation was set aside.

4. The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 31 of the Act on account of non-payment of the maintenance amount. The Court registered the case against the petitioner which order is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

5. The argument raised is that complaint under Section 31 of the Act is not maintainable as penalty is provided in the said provision for breach of protection order and not for breach of an order of grant of maintenance.

6. The learned Single Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as 2009(5) MPHT 319 (Sunil @ Sonu vs. Sarita Chawla (Smt.) held as under:-

“Whether the interim order passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the maintenance was awarded is a protection order and on account of breach of protection order, the proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner under Section 31 of the Act.”

The said question was dealt with as under:-

“Section 18 of the Act empowers the Court for passing a protection order against a respondent, who commits any act of domestic violence. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Act and Central Govt. has framed the Rules. As per rule 6 every application of the aggrieved person under section 12 of the Act is required to be filed in Form 11. Sub-clause III of Form No.1 deals with economic violence according to which not providing money for maintaining of food, clothes, medicine etc. is amounting to the economic violence for which the Court is empowered to pass a protection order. As per sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Act the proceedings are required to be governed by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. As per subsection (2) of section 28, the Court is not prevented from laying down its own procedure for disposal of the case where no amount of maintenance has been paid by the petitioners, no illegality was committed by the learned trial Court in initiating the proceedings under section 31 of the Act.”

It is the said finding which was doubted by the learned Single Bench while making reference to the larger Bench.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Smt. Kanchan vs. Vikramjeet Setiya (Cr. Misc. Petition No.123/2010, decided on 13.02.2012 by Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court).

(ii) Manoj Anand vs. State of U.P. and another (Criminal Revision No.635/2011, decided on 10.02.2012 by the Single