LI Network
Published on: December 21, 2023 at 14:07 IST
The Karnataka High Court clarified that an order granting maintenance does not fall under the category of a ‘protection order.’
The violation of such an order does not attract Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), according to the court.
The decision came as the Dharwad Bench of the High Court addressed a criminal petition filed by an individual seeking to quash proceedings related to an offense under Section 31 of the DV Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, presiding over a Single Bench, emphasized, “The plain reading of Section 18 of the DV Act, in the light of the definition found under Section 2(o) of the DV Act, it could be definitely said that the order of granting maintenance does not amount to a ‘protection order,’ and violation of the same will not attract the provisions of Section 31 of the DV Act.”
The court referred to the case of Francis Cyril C Cunha v. Lydia Jane D’Cunha, highlighting that a protection order does not include an order granting monetary relief or maintenance under Section 20 of the DV Act.
Background:
The petitioner’s wife and daughter filed a complaint alleging a breach of a protection order by the petitioner, claiming non-payment of maintenance. The Magistrate recorded statements and registered a criminal case under Section 31 of the DV Act. The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings before the High Court.
The High Court, taking note of the separate reliefs provided under Section 18 for protection and Section 20 for monetary relief, ruled that the Magistrate’s approach was a legal error. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Mohammed Yaseen Naikwadi v. Aneesa Mohammed Yaseen Naikwadi & Anr.