11-07-2025
Section 31 penalties under Domestic Violence Act not applicable to maintenance orders: Karnataka high court
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has determined that penalties under section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are not applicable to maintenance orders.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar delivered the ruling while dismissing a Bengaluru woman's petition.
The case involved the woman seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 and Rs 15 lakh for marriage expenses from her husband, along with the return of gold jewellery. She filed for interim maintenance under Section 23(2) of the Act. In Nov 2014, a magistrate granted a Rs 3,000 interim monthly maintenance. The respondent-husband paid Rs 8,000 in Dec of that year, and requested time for paying the remaining amount.
The following year, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 31 of the DV Act, seeking action against the respondent for breaching the interim protection order. Following an inquiry, the magistrate convicted the respondent in Jan 2017, imposing a six-month simple imprisonment or Rs 20,000 fine.
You Can Also Check:
Bengaluru AQI
|
Weather in Bengaluru
|
Bank Holidays in Bengaluru
|
Public Holidays in Bengaluru
The respondent appealed to the sessions court, which overturned the magistrate's order. The woman challenged the decision, arguing that her husband deserved punishment under Section 31 for non-compliance with maintenance orders.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Tompok muka hilang mudah! Terlaris di Guardian!
URUHIME MOMOKO
Undo
The husband contended that punishment is provided only for protection orders passed under Section 18 which excludes monetary relief.
Justice Amarannavar observed that Section 31's language is unambiguous, referring only to protection and interim protection orders. The provision applies exclusively to Section 18 protection orders, not to residence, monetary, custody, or compensation orders under sections 19-22.
The court emphasised that criminal statutes require strict interpretation as they affect citizens' fundamental rights. The legislature deliberately included only protection orders under section 31 after specifically categorising them under section 18.
The judge also highlighted practical implications, questioning whether failure to pay maintenance due to valid reasons should attract section 31 penalties. Such wider interpretation could overwhelm courts with section 31 cases, which the legislature did not intend.
The court concluded it cannot override legislative intent by treating non-payment of maintenance as a protection order breach under section 31, thereby affirming the sessions court's ruling favouring the husband.
