Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The distinction is critical: violation of a protection order (Section 18) can be prosecuted under Section 31, but violation of an order under Section 19 (residence order) does not necessarily invoke Section 31 unless it is explicitly linked to a protection order breach ["SRI CHANDRASHEKARA I V vs SMT KAVYA @ SANGEETHA - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- Section 31 of PWDV Act exclusively deals with breach of protection order or interim protection order and an order granting maintenance in an application filed under Section 12 ["Roopa B.C. W/o Tharesh vs Tharesh S/o Byregowda - Karnataka"]- Violation of monetary order will also fall within the purview of Section 31 of the DV Act but a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the PWDV Act for non-compliance with a monetary order such as an order for payment of maintenance ["Akshay Thakur VS State of H. P. - Crimes"]- Violation of an order passed under Section 19(f) of PWDV Act... does not amount to a violation of an order passed under Section 18 of the Act ["SRI CHANDRASHEKARA I V vs SMT KAVYA @ SANGEETHA - Karnataka"]- Section 31 of the PWDV Act applies only on violation of the interim order or final protection order passed under Section 18 ["Sri N. Srikanth vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]
In summary, violations of prohibitory or protection orders under Section 18 can be penalized under Section 31, but violations of orders under Section 19 (residence) are not covered under Section 31 unless they are linked to breaches of protection orders.
In the realm of domestic violence law in India, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) offers critical safeguards for aggrieved women. One common query arises: whether violation of a prohibitory order under Sec 19 can be executed under Sec 31 of PWDV Act. This question touches on the distinct mechanisms for enforcing monetary relief versus penalizing breaches of protection orders. Understanding these nuances is vital for victims, legal practitioners, and courts to ensure proper recourse.
This article breaks down the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and practical enforcement steps. Note: This is general information based on statutory provisions and case law; it is not personalized legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
The PWDV Act delineates specific reliefs and their enforcement:
These sections operate under Section 28, where proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and offences under Section 31 are generally governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), with flexibility for courts to devise procedures. Nirmala VS State of Kerala - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 276 clarifies: Section 28(1) stipulates that... all proceedings under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offence under Section 31 shall be governed by the Provisions of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1973.
Violation of a prohibitory order issued under Section 19 cannot be directly executed under Section 31. Section 31 is strictly for breaches of protection orders (under Section 18) or interim ones, imposing penal consequences. In contrast, Section 19 deals with enforcement of residence and monetary relief orders, using mechanisms like attachment of wages or CrPC execution procedures. S. VANITHA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 2021 1 Supreme 139
Key distinctions:- Section 19 empowers enforcement of monetary relief, including lump sum or monthly payments. Baiju VS Latha - 2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 1046 notes: The scope of an order granting monetary relief can be understood from Section 20 of PWDV Act, which... empowers the Magistrate to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance.- Section 31 targets non-compliance with protection orders, treating it as a criminal offence. S. VANITHA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 2021 1 Supreme 139 specifies: Section 31 specifically deals with breach of a ‘protection order’ or ‘interim protection order’ and prescribes penal consequences for such breach.
Judicial interpretations reinforce this separation. Akshay Thakur vs State of H.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 324 holds: Section 31 of PWDV Act exclusively deals with breach of a ‘protection order’ or ‘interim protection order’ and an order granting maintenance... under Section 20... cannot be interpreted to fall within the ambit of term ‘protection order’ as used in Section 31 of the Act.
A prohibitory order under Section 19 (e.g., restraining entry into the shared household) aligns more with protection orders but its breach triggers criminal proceedings under Section 31, not execution as monetary relief.
Prohibitory orders under Section 19 typically prevent dispossession or disturbance of possession. For instance, courts have clarified that such orders require proof of domestic violence. Radha Raman Srivastava VS State of Bihar - 2012 Supreme(Pat) 824 observes: However, for passing any order under Section 19 of the PWDV Act, the Magistrate is obliged to record his satisfaction about commission of domestic violence.
Enforcement here involves civil-like execution: direct payment, property attachment, or CrPC Order 21 procedures, not penal action.
If violated, it becomes a cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 31. The aggrieved person must file a complaint, leading to prosecution. This is distinct from monetary recovery. As per the Act's scheme, protection orders (Section 18) and residence orders (Section 19) breaches fall under penal enforcement, but not via 'execution' mechanisms of Section 19. V. Muralidhar VS Sandhya - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 953 links it to: according to sec. 31(3) of the Act, the Magistrate... may frame charges for the offence under sec.
Courts consistently differentiate:- Monetary relief (Sections 19-20) uses execution akin to civil decrees. Vaishali Abhishek Mehta VS Honble Sub Divisional Officer - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 2118 discusses residence orders enforceable in civil courts under Section 26.- Protection breaches are criminal. In cases involving economic abuse, reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 are granted separately. Masudi Jatansingh VS Jatansingh Pratap - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 2675 affirms: Economic abuse is a part of the definition of the term 'domestic violence'.
No limitation bars apply to Section 12 applications, aiding timely relief. V. Muralidhar VS Sandhya - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 953 rules: the complaint made under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does not attract limitation period as it provides civil remedies.
Recommendations:- Initiate Section 31 proceedings for breaches via police or Magistrate.- Use Section 19 for monetary/residence enforcement.- Courts must distinguish to avoid procedural errors. Chetan R. Lokande VS Sushma J. - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 547
In summary, while Section 31 penalizes breaches of protection orders, it does not 'execute' Section 19 prohibitory order violations as monetary relief. Victims should pursue parallel remedies: penal for compliance, civil execution for finances. This ensures the PWDV Act's protective intent without misapplication.
Key Takeaways:- Section 19: Monetary/residence enforcement via CrPC execution. Baiju VS Latha - 2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 1046- Section 31: Criminal punishment for protection breaches. S. VANITHA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 2021 1 Supreme 139- Seek tailored advice; procedures may vary by facts.
Stay informed on domestic violence laws to empower rights effectively.
#PWDVAct #DomesticViolenceLaw #WomenProtection
What she can insist on is only an alternative accommodation under Sec.19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act. 10. The second appeal is without any merit. ... The second defendant filed an application under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act for short) against the plaintiff, his father and the first defendant. ... The protection afforded to a woman under Sec.17(1) of the PWDV Ac....
Even the Sarpanch is, therefore, competent under Sec. 195 as a public servant to move the application for action under Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. for violation of the order passed by him u/s. 64 of the Act. ... No such thing can be done in respect of an order under Sec. 64 of the Act. ... "Thus when so long the order of a Magistrate remains in force it has not been violated and any violation of an order of ....
Sec. 26 of the PWDV Act empowers certain reliefs, including relief for a residence order, to be obtained from any civil Court in any legal proceedings. ... The question in the aforesaid circumstances is as to whether the mother was justified in invoking the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act to safeguard her rights as a senior citizen as ordained under Sec. 4, Sec. 5 read with Sec. 23 of the Act, so as to be ent....
2014, preferred under Sec. 12 of the PWDV Act. ... Sec. 3 of the PWDV Act defines the term "domestic violence". Economic abuse is a part of the definition of the term "domestic violence". ... Both those appeals were preferred under Sec. 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'PWDV Act'), against the judgment and order dtd. 25/7/2018, passed by the learned Judici....
Act would apply only on violation of the interim order or final protection order passed under Section 18 of the D.V. Act and it was held further that in case of violation of any order passed other than an order passed under Section 31 of PWDV Act for non- compliance of monetary order such as order for payment of maintenance passed under Section 20 of ....
Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that section 31 of the DV Act has to be liberally construed to provide benefit to the women. The violation of monetary order will also fall within the purview of Section 31 of the DV Act. ... Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the preceding discussion, this Court is of the view that a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the PWDV Act for non-compliance with a mone....
Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that section 31 of the DV Act has to be liberally construed to provide benefit to the women. The violation of monetary order will also fall within the purview of Section 31 of the DV Act. ... Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the preceding discussion, this Court is of the view that a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the PWDV Act for non- compliance with a mo....
Procedure- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). ... Section 28(1) stipulates that the same as otherwise provided the Act, all proceedings under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offence under Section 31 shall be governed by the Provisions of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1973. ... However, t....
Procedure- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the ... However, the rigour of Ext.28(1) could be strictly followed as far as the proceedings under the other provisions of the Act as in Section 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 31 as afore mentioned Section 28(1) ... Section 28(1) and to devise its own procedure in deciding application under Sec#H....
2) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for the reliefs U/Sec. 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act? 3) What order? 7. ... It is further contended that on 07.03.2010, she was abandoned from the matrimonial house and therefore, she has approached the concerned authorities for protection order under Section 18 and residence order under Section 19 and monitory reliefs under Sections 20 and 22 of the PWDV#H....
498A IPC being committed in relation to domestic violence that she complains of. 498A or any other provisions of IPC or the offence under Dowry Prohibition Act. It is pertinent to mention here that according to sec. 31(3) of the Act, the Magistrate, while framing charge under sub-sec. (1) for violation of protection order or interim protection order, may frame charges for the offence under sec.
However, for passing any order under Section 19 of the PWDV Act, the Magistrate is obliged to record his satisfaction about commission of domestic violence. It is also apparent that opposite party no.2 is already getting Rs. 4,000/- per month from the petitioner as an ad interim maintenance by virtue of an order passed in the Divorce case. Merely on surmises and conjecture, orders under Sections 18 and 19 of the PWDV Act cannot be passed. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has conclusively recorded a finding of fact that opposite party no.2 has failed to prove char....
Their Lordships have further held that it left the choice to the Corporation to act in the first instance under Sec.31 of the Act and save its rights and remedies under Sec.29 of the Act to be availed at a later stage, with the sole object of enabling the Corporation to recover its dues. There is no equity in favour of a defaulting party which may justify interference by the Courts in exercise of its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to assist it in not repaying its debts. In other words, the relief available to the corporation under Sec.29 of th....
Therefore, they are being executed by a civil Court having jurisdiction in the area. Admittedly, the present appeal was filed to the Appellate Authority not in pursuance of any such order having been passed by the learned Rent Controller. But as already mentioned above, under Sec. 18 all orders passed under the Act can be executed as if it was a decree of the civil Court. Once it is executed by the civil Court, necessary implication would be that appeal would be as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure.
The submission that the impugned reassessment order cannot be an order passed under Sec. 47 of the Act, as there was no sanction as required by law, is not disputed by the respondents, because their clear case is that the impugned order of reassessment was passed under Sec. 19(1) of the Act. On the same set of facts, merely because of change of opinion a proceeding under Sec. 19(1) was not justified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
