Violation of Monetary or Residence Orders Not Punishable Under Section 31 of DV Act, Rules Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shimla: In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of penal provisions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the breach of monetary reliefs or residence orders does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 31 of the Act. The Court emphasized that Section 31 specifically applies only to the violation of 'protection orders' issued under Section 18 of the Act.

Justice RakeshKainthla , presiding over the case of Akshay Thakur vs. State of H.P. and others , delivered the judgment on April 25, 2025, quashing an FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 31 of the DV Act for allegedly failing to comply with orders related to maintenance, compensation, and separate accommodation.

Case Background

The case originated from an application filed by the complainant, Pooja Devi , under Section 12 of the DV Act, alleging domestic violence. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, subsequently passed an order on June 30, 2017, directing the petitioner, Akshay Thakur , to provide separate accommodation, pay ₹10,000 as compensation, and ₹4,000 per month as maintenance.

Alleging non-compliance with these directions, particularly the non-payment of ₹12,000 in maintenance arrears and the ₹10,000 compensation, the complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the Magistrate. Acting on this application, the Magistrate directed the police to register an FIR under Section 31 of the DV Act. FIR No. 9/2018 was registered at Police Station, Manali, leading to the petitioner being charge-sheeted.

Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, Akshay Thakur approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR.

Petitioner's Argument

The petitioner, represented by M/s Aprajita and Ajay Thakur , argued that the Magistrate erred in directing the registration of an FIR. Their primary contention was that Section 31 of the DV Act penalizes only the breach of a 'protection order' or 'interim protection order'. They submitted that orders pertaining to maintenance, compensation, and residence relief do not fall within the definition or scope of a 'protection order' as defined in the Act. Therefore, non-compliance with such orders cannot trigger criminal proceedings under Section 31. They relied on judgments from the Telangana and Karnataka High Courts supporting this interpretation.

Respondent's Argument

The State, represented by Mr. Prashant Sen , Deputy Advocate General, opposed the petition. The State contended that Section 31 should be interpreted liberally to benefit women, and that violation of monetary orders should also be considered within the purview of Section 31. They asserted that the Magistrate's order included a protection order restraining domestic violence, in addition to accommodation, compensation, and maintenance.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Kainthla meticulously examined the relevant provisions of the DV Act, particularly Section 31 (Penalty), Section 2(o) (Definition of protection order), Section 18 (Protection orders), Section 19 (Residence orders), Section 20 (Monetary reliefs), Section 21 (Custody orders), and Section 22 (Compensation orders).

The Court highlighted that Section 31 explicitly refers only to the breach of a "protection order, or an interim protection order." Section 2(o) defines "protection order" as an order made in terms of Section 18. Section 18 lists specific prohibitions such as committing domestic violence, aiding/abetting it, entering the aggrieved person's place of employment/school, attempting communication, alienating assets, or causing violence to dependents.

Applying the fundamental rule of literal interpretation, especially relevant for penal statutes, the Court cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that when statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its plain meaning, regardless of consequences. Penal statutes, in particular, must be strictly construed.

The Court observed:

> "It is apparent from the bare perusal of Section 31 of the DV Act that it talks about the protection order and the interim protection order. It does not talk about monetary orders... In the present case, the words in Section 31 are plain and ambiguous. They only mention the protection and interim protection order. Therefore, applying the literal rules of interpretation, Section 31 applies only to the breach of protection orders mentioned in Section 18 and not to residence orders mentioned in Section 19, monetary reliefs mentioned in section 20, custody orders mentioned in Section 21, and compensation orders mentioned in Section 22. Had the legislature intended to apply Section 31 to these orders, it would have mentioned them specifically."

Justice Kainthla noted that interpreting Section 31 to include breaches of monetary or residence orders would require adding words not present in the statute, which is impermissible, particularly for a penal provision.

The Court further relied on a string of judgments from various High Courts, including Kerala, Karnataka, Delhi, and Telangana , which have consistently held that Section 31 applies exclusively to protection orders under Section 18 and not to monetary reliefs under Section 20 or other orders. The Court specifically referenced the reasoning in Suneesh v. State of Kerala , where the Kerala High Court pointed out the potential for courts to be over-flooded with cases under Section 31 if non-payment of monthly maintenance were penalized, and questioned the fairness of such an interpretation for unavoidable reasons. The Delhi High Court judgment in Anish Pramod Patel v. Kiran Jyot Maini was also cited, which underscored that monetary relief enforcement is addressed through other mechanisms like Section 20(6) of the DV Act or Section 125 of the CrPC, and the Act's purpose is rehabilitation, not immediate incarceration for non-payment of maintenance.

The High Court explicitly disagreed with any contrary views taken by other High Courts on this matter.

Conclusion

Based on the literal interpretation of Section 31 and the consistent view of several High Courts, the Himachal Pradesh High Court concluded that the breach alleged against the petitioner (failure to provide accommodation and pay maintenance/compensation) did not constitute a violation of a 'protection order' under Section 18, and thus, was not punishable under Section 31 of the DV Act.

Consequently, the Court found that the Magistrate erred in directing the registration of the FIR under Section 31 for non-compliance with monetary and residence orders.

The petition was allowed, and FIR No. 9/2018 registered at Police Station, Manali, and all consequential proceedings arising from it were ordered to be quashed.

The judgment clarifies a crucial aspect of the DV Act, reinforcing that while non-compliance with court orders under the Act has consequences, criminal prosecution under Section 31 is strictly reserved for breaches of specific 'protection orders' aimed at preventing domestic violence itself, as defined under Section 18. Other remedies exist for enforcing monetary or residence orders.

The judgment was reserved on March 26, 2025, and pronounced on April 25, 2025.