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

2012 Supreme(Raj) 217

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Kanchan
Vs
Vikramjeet Setiya
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 123 of 2010
Decided on : 13/02/2012

Non-compliance of an order of monetary relief does not give rise to the consequence of Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Headnote:

PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 - SECTION 31 - SECTION 20 - SECTION 12 - SECTION 18 - SECTION 2(O) - SECTION 2(K) - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 125 - The court held that non-compliance of an order of monetary relief does not give rise to the consequence of Section 31 of the Act of 2005.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, being the wife of the respondent, had filed an application under Section 12 as well as under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 seeking maintenance for herself and also for her child. The application under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 was allowed on 11-8-2009 and the respondent was directed to make payment of Rs. 3000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 2000/- per month to the child. When the respondent did not comply with the order, the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial Court under Section 31 of the Act of 2005 seeking prosecution of the respondent on the ground of non-compliance of the order of monetary relief.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 2005 need to be considered for proper appreciation of the issue raised in the miscellaneous petition. The provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 2005 clearly spells out that the application under Section 31 of the Act of 2005 lies when there is a breach of a protection order or an interim protection order. The term "protection order" is defined in Section 2(o), which reads as follows :-- Section 2(o).-- "Protection order" means an order made in terms of section 18. Section 18 of the Act of 2005 reads as follows :-- "Section 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 leave of the Magistrate; (f) causing violence to the dependants, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence; (g) committing any other act as specified in the protection order."

Issues: Whether non-compliance of an order of monetary relief gives rise to the consequence of Section 31 of the Act of 2005?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offence which is created by Section 31 is specifically in regard to breach of the protection order or an interim protection order. The term "monetary relief" is not included in this Section and thereby taking out of the operation of Section 31 of the Act of 2005 any breach of an order of monetary relief.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the miscellaneous petition and directed the learned Magistrate to forthwith issue warrant for recovery of the amount of maintenance and if despite service of warrant, the amount of maintenance is not deposited on or before 10th of each month then the learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to pass an order of sending the respondent to civil jail as per Section 125(3) Cr. P.C.

ORDER

The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7-11-2009 passed by the judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 312/2009 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under S. 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act of 2005') for seeking initiation of the criminal proceedings against the respondent on account of non-compliance of the order of monetary relief.

2. The petitioner, being the wife of the respondent, had filed an application under Section 12 as well as under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 seeking maintenance for herself and also for her child. The application under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 was allowed on 11-8-2009 and the respondent was directed to make payment of Rs. 3000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 2000/- per month to the child. When the respondent did not comply with the order, the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial Court under Section 31 of the Act of 2005 seeking prosecution of the respondent on the ground of non-compliance of the order of monetary relief. The said application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 7-11-2009; hence the instant miscellaneous petition.

3. No one appears for the petitioner.

4. After considering the grounds raised in the miscellaneous petition, this Court feels that the provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 2005 need to be considered for proper appreciation of the issue raised in the miscellaneous petition. The provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 2005 read as follows :––

"31. Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent.–– (1) A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.

(2) The offence under sub-section (1) shall as far as practicable be tried by the Magistrate who has passed the order, the breach of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused.

(3) While framing charges under sub-section (1) the Magistrate may also frame charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other provision of that Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under those provisions."

5. Thus, the provision of Section 31 of the Act of 2005 clearly spells out that the application under Section 31 of the Act of 2005 lies when there is a breach of a protection order or an interim protection order. The term "protection order" is defined in Section 2(o), which reads as follows :––

Section 2(o).–– "Protection order" means an order made in terms of section 18.

Section 18 of the Act of 2005 reads as follows :––

"Section 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 th























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