In a judgment delivered by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act applies solely to penalizing violations of protection orders designed to prevent acts of violence against women, and does not extend to breaches of maintenance, compensation, or residence orders.
Background of the case:
Akshay Thakur (“Petitioner”) has filed a petition requesting the quashing of an FIR registered against him under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), on the grounds of allegedly failing to comply with orders related to maintenance and residence.
The Petitioner’s wife had approached the trial court, claiming that he had not followed the directives regarding maintenance, compensation, and provision of separate accommodation.
In response to her application, the trial court instructed the police to register an FIR against the petitioner under Section 31 of the DV Act.
Arguments:
The Petitioner contended that Section 31 of the DV Act applies exclusively to violations of “protection orders” and does not extend to breaches of maintenance, compensation, or residence orders.
He further argued that the trial court made an error in directing the police to register an FIR, as the alleged violation involved a monetary order, not a protection order.
In contrast, the respondent argued that the DV Act, being a welfare law aimed at protecting women, should be interpreted broadly, and that failure to comply with monetary or residence orders should also be subject to penalties under Section 31.
Findings:
The High Court noted that Section 31 of the DV Act imposes penalties solely for violations of a “protection order” or “interim protection order,” and does not apply to breaches of other types of orders.
It further explained that protection orders are issued under Section 18 of the DV Act to protect women from acts of violence, while maintenance and residence orders are issued 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 observed that a straightforward interpretation of Section 31 of the DV Act reveals that it pertains solely to breaches of protection or interim protection orders, and not to violations of other orders.
Based on this understanding, the Court concluded that the trial court had made an error by directing the registration of an FIR against the petitioner for alleged non-compliance with monetary and residence orders.
As a result, the FIR was ordered to be quashed, and the petition was granted.
