The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a judgment by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, ruled that Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act pertains exclusively to penalizing violations of protection order aimed at preventing acts of violence against women, and does not cover breaches of maintenance, compensation, or residence orders.
Background of the case:
Akshay Thakur (“Petitioner”) has filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), based on allegations of failing to comply with monetary and residence-related orders.
The Petitioner’s wife had approached the trial court, alleging that he had not adhered to directives regarding maintenance, compensation, and provision of separate accommodation.
Following her application, the trial court directed the police to register an FIR against the petitioner under Section 31 of the DV Act.
Arguments:
The Petitioner argued that Section 31 of the DV Act applies solely to breaches of “protection orders,” and that maintenance, compensation, and residence orders do not fall within this category.
He further asserted that the trial court erred in directing the police to register an FIR, as the alleged violation pertained to a monetary order, not a protection order.
In response, the respondent contended that the DV Act, being a welfare legislation for the protection of women, should be interpreted broadly, and that non-compliance with monetary or residence orders should also attract penalties under Section 31.
Findings:
The High Court observed that Section 31 of the DV Act prescribes penalties only for violations of a “protection order” or “interim protection order,” and not for breaches of other types of orders.
It further clarified that protection orders are issued under Section 18 of the DV Act to safeguard women from acts of violence, whereas maintenance and residence orders are granted under Sections 20 and 19, respectively.
The High court remarked that “It is the rule of interpretation of the statute that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed because they deprive a citizen of his life and liberty, and no act, which does not fall within the purview of the criminal statute, can be added to it by way of interpretation.”
The Supreme court in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 held that the first and foremost principle of interpretation is the literal interpretation and when the provisions of the statute are clear the same is to be interpreted literally and other rules will apply subsequently.
The High Court noted that a clear reading of Section 31 of the DV Act indicates it applies exclusively to breaches of protection or interim protection orders, and not to violations of other orders.
In light of this interpretation, the Court held that the trial court had erred in directing the registration of an FIR against the petitioner for alleged non-compliance with monetary and residence orders.
Consequently, the FIR was ordered to be quashed, and the petition was allowed.