[Domestic Violence] Maintenance order does not amount to protection order" holds Karnataka HC [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court recently held that an order granting maintenance does not amount to protection order and violation of the same will not attract section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent). Under the DV Act, a protection order is passed to prohibit the respondent from committing the domestic violence and to prevent from aiding or abetting the commission of acts of domestic violence against aggrieved person or the dependents. 

The plain reading of Section 18 of the D.V. Act in the light of definition found under Section 2(o) of the D.V.Act, it could be definitely said that the order of granting maintenance does not amount to protection order and violation of the same will not attract the provisions of the section 31 of the D.V. Act, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar observed. 

The complainant-wife filed a private complaint against the petitioner-husband alleging that he breached the protection order by not paying the maintenance amount as per an order dated July 29, 2015. And, committed an offence under Section 31 of the Act. Hearing this, the Magistrate ruled in favour of the complainant wife. 
Challenging this, the petitioner contended that as per  Section 31(1) of the D.V. Act, it would only apply to a breach of a protection order and not to a breach of the interim maintenance order.

Noting the factual matrix and the arguments, the Court refused to accept the Magistrates view. 

The approach of learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 31 of the D.V. Act is a glaring legal error and hence, the same will have to be set aside.

In the present case, Section 31 of the DV Act was invoked on the ground that arrears of the maintenance were not paid and not for violation of the protection order, the Court pointed out. 

Providing two separate reliefs, one under Section 18 of the D.V. Act for protection and another for monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV. Act, will have to be taken into consideration while analysing the scope of Section 31 of the D.V. Act. If protection order was inclusive of monetary relief of granting maintenance, Section 20 of the D.V. Act would not have been separately provided, the Bench observed, while allowing the petitioners plea.

[Read Order]