Section 31 Of Domestic Violence Act Only Applies To Breach Of Protection Orders, Not Others Such As Maintenance Or Residence Orders: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, held that Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act only deals with penalty for breach of protection orders (to protect women from acts of violence) and not with other orders such as maintenance (to provide financial support), compensation (for compensation of injuries) or residence (for providing shelter) orders.

Background of the case:

The Petition has been filed by Akshay Thakur (“Petitioner”) seeking the quashing of an FIR against him registered under Section 31 of the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), based on allegations of non-compliance with a monetary and residence order.

The Petitioner's wife had filed an application against the petitioner in the trial court alleging that the petitioner had not complied with the order to provide maintenance, compensation, and separate accommodation to his wife.

After the above application was filed, the trial court issued a direction to the police to register an FIR against the petitioner against the Section 31 of the DV Act.

Contentions:

The Petitioner submitted that the Section 31 of DV Act is imposed only to the breach of “protection orders” and maintenance, compensation, and residence orders do not fall within the definition of a protection order.

He further contended that the trial court made an error by directing the police to register an FIR against the petitioner as the breach was of a monetary order and not a protection order.

Per contra, the respondent submitted that in cases concerning protection of women, the DV Act should be interpreted liberally and non-compliance with monetary or residence orders should also be punishable under Section 31 of the DV Act.

Findings:

The High court noted that as per section 31 of the DV Act, a penalty is only imposed on the breach of “protection order” or “interim protection order” and not on the breach of any other order.

It further noted that a protection order is passed under section 18 of the DV Act, to protect women from any incidents of violence. However maintenance and residential orders are passed in Section 19 & 20 of the DV Act 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 since an interpretation of Section 31 of the DV act makes it very clear that it will apply only when there is a breach of protection and interim protection order and not any other order.

Based on the above, the High court concluded that the trial court made an error in directing the police to register an FIR against the petitioner for breach of monetary and residence order.

Accordingly, the police were directed to Quash the FIR against the petitioner and the petition was allowed.

Case Name: Akshay Thakur v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: Cr.MMO No. 1079 of 2024

Date of Decision: 25.04.2025

For the Petitioner : M/s Aprajita and Ajay Thakur, Advocates.

For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Click Here To Read/Download Order