The present Revision Petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings in Criminal Misc. No. 460/2011 directing the registration of a separate Criminal Misc. case on I.A. No.VI passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bellary dated 14.06.2012.

2. The important and thought provoking point that arose for consideration of this Court in this case is:

“Whether the breach of an exparte interim maintenance order passed by the Court under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as ‘DV Act’) is an offence under Section 31 of the said Act so as to initiate Criminal Proceedings and punishable under Section 31 of the said Act”?

3. In order to appreciate and find out whether the said provision under Section 31 which is purely penal in nature, can be invoked by the party who obtained an order under Section 23 of the DV Act, it is just and necessary to have the brief factual matrix of this case.

4. The respondents herein Smt. Christina Geetha Rani – wife and daughter of the petitioner herein have filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act and also made an application for grant of interim maintenance. Vide order dated 07.01.2012 the learned Second Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bellary passed an exparte interim order granting maintenance of Rs.8,000/to the respondents. Simultaneously, notice was also ordered to be issued to the petitioner. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent – wife filed another application under I.A. No.3 and the Court passed an order on 30.03.2012 directing Drawing Officer of the petitioner who is working as Dy.S.P., GESCOM, Gulbarga for deduction of an amount of Rs.8,000/monthly from the salary of the petitioner and to deposit the same before the Court. The respondents have also filed another application under Section 31 of the said Act for the purpose of taking cognizance for nonpayment of the interim maintenance against the petitioner. Without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has passed an order on 14.06.2012 directing the Office to register a separate Criminal Misc. Case against the petitioner under Section 31 of the DV Act. The said order was called in question on several grounds. The respondents appeared before this Court through their Counsel and contested the proceedings.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and as well as the respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended before this Court that the order passed by the learned Magistrate impugned under the petition is not legally sustainable. The registration of the case under Section 31 on the basis of I.A. No.VI filed by the respondents is against to the provisions of the Act and the same is liable to be quashed. It is also contended that the Drawing Officer of the petitioner has been deducting monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/and sending the same by way of D.D. to the Court directly before 5th of every month. Therefore, the passing of the orders on 14.06.2012 is against to the principles of natural justice.

7. The main contention of the learned Counsel is that, there is no protection order passed under Section 18 of the Act but order was passed under Section 23 of the Act. Unless the protection order is passed under Section 18 of the Act, Section 31 does not come into play and the same cannot be invoked. It is also contended that as per the orders dated 30.03.2012 (a direction to the Drawing Officer) was not made known to the petitioner but the amount being deducted and sent to the Court. Therefore, there was no intentional violation of any orders passed by the Trial Court. The petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.24,000/on 25.06.2012 through D.D. before the Trial Court as maintenance amount and the said amount is pertaining to three months i.e. from January 2012 to March 2012. The respondent has also accepted the same. Further, it is argued before the Court by the learned Co