Person Can't Be Summoned For Non-Compliance Of Maintenance Order Under Section 31 Of Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

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, for non-compliance of an order for payment of maintenance.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the focus of the enactment is on providing immediate and effective relief to victims of domestic violence by way of maintenance or interim maintenance orders, and that the idea is ot to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against the aggressor for non-payment of maintenance and to send such person to prison.

“The aim of the Act was, therefore, to provide for protection, rehabilitation and upliftment of victims of domestic violence, in contrast to sending the aggressor to prisons. In other words, the purpose behind enforcement of monetary orders would be to provide monetary sustenance to the victim, and not the incarceration of the aggressor,” the court said.

Justice Sharma made the observations while quashing a summoning order passed against a husband by the trial court under Section 31(1) of the Act for non-compliance of monetary relief or interim maintenance in a case filed by the wife.

The wife in her complaint alleged that despite there being judicial orders granting her interim maintenance, the husband accused failed to comply with the same, and thus, he was liable to be summoned under Section 31(1) of PWDV Act and Section 498A of IPC.

Disposing of the plea, the court said that the non-compliance of monetary relief, including order granting maintenance or interim maintenance, has to be dealt with as per provisions of Section 20(6) of the Act as well as CrPC.

“Thus, in view of the statutory framework of PWDV Act and Rules, the order granting maintenance or interim maintenance under Section 20 of PWDV as monetary relief to the aggrieved women will have to be enforced in the manner as provided under Section 20(6) of PWDV Act or otherwise as per provisions of Cr.P.C. including manner for enforcement of orders passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Mr. Gautam Panjwani, Mr. Neeraj Jain & Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Utkarsh Jaiswal, Mr. Vikas Tiwari, Ms. Shubhangi Negi & Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal, Advocates

Title: ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220

Click Here To Read Order