In CRL.M.C. 1951/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court rules person cannot be ‘summoned’ under Section 31 of  DV Act for non-compliance with a monetary order; says focus of Act is not criminalizing non-payment of maintenance
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [01-12-2023]

Read Order: Anish Pramod Patel V. Kiran Jyot Maini

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 6, 2023: The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) for non-compliance with a monetary order, such as an order for the payment of maintenance issued under Section 20 of the PWDV Act.

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), had sought the quashing of the summoning order, issued under Section 31(1) of the PWDV Act. The summoning order pertained to non-compliance with the monetary relief or interim maintenance order in criminal case titled 'Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel'.

Briefly stated, the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife got married on 30.04.2015. Subsequently, an FIR was registered on the complaint of the wife under Sections 498A/323/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition before the Allahabad High Court for stay on arrest and quashing of the FIR, which led to mediation. The wife then filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, seeking interim maintenance. The Judicial Magistrate initially ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 35,000 as interim maintenance, which was later modified to Rs. 45,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 55,000 per month to the daughter. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court, leading to mediation that failed. The wife then filed criminal application under Section 31(1) of PWDV Act for non-compliance with the interim maintenance order, resulting in summons challenged by the petitioner.

The single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that within the statutory framework of the PWDV Act and Rules, orders granting maintenance or interim maintenance under Section 20 of the PWDV Act, as monetary relief to the aggrieved women, must be enforced as provided under Section 20(6) of the PWDV Act or through other means specified in the Cr.P.C., including the procedures for enforcing orders passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The bench further observed that Section 31 of the PWDV Act exclusively addressed breaches of 'protection order' or 'interim protection order.' An order granting maintenance, which is issued under Section 20 based on an application filed under Section 12, providing for 'monetary relief,' should not be interpreted to fall within the scope of the term 'protection order' as used in Section 31 of the Act.

The bench opined that the legislative intent was evident from the language used in the enactment, and a scrutiny of Section 20, Section 28, Section 9 of the PWDV Act, and Rule 6 of the PWDV Rules elucidated the procedure for addressing and handling the non-compliance of monetary orders, including orders for maintenance.

The bench remarked, “when there is no ambiguity in the scheme of legislature and the purport of provisions of the Act and Rules, no purpose would be served by giving a different interpretation to the provisions, which are otherwise clear and unambiguous.”

The bench opined that the focus of the PWDV Act was on providing immediate and effective relief to victims of domestic violence through maintenance or interim maintenance orders. It was emphasized that the primary intention was not to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent for non-payment of maintenance, leading to imprisonment.

Thus, the Court held that the 'respondent' under the PWDV Act could be summoned as an accused under Section 31 for non-compliance with an order of monetary relief. Consequently, the Court was inclined to quash the impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Third, Gautam Budh Nagar, and all consequential proceedings pending before the Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

The present petition was disposed of accordingly.