The Delhi High Court in the case Anish Pramod Patel v. Kiran Jyot Maini observed and has ruled that a person cannot be summoned as stated under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for non-compliance of an order for payment of maintenance.
The bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the case 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 to immediately initiate the criminal proceedings against the aggressor for the non-payment of maintenance and to send such person to prison.
The court stated that aim of the said Act is to provide for for protection, rehabilitation, and upliftment of victims of domestic violence, in contrast to sending the aggressor to prisons and the purpose behind the enforcement of monetary orders would be to provide monetary sustenance to the victim, and not the incarceration of the aggressor.
The bench headed by Justice Sharma in the case observed and has quashed the summoning order passed against a husband by the trial court as stated under Section 31(1) of the Act for non-compliance of monetary relief or interim maintenance in a case filed by the wife.
It has been alleged by the wife in the complaint that despite there being judicial orders granting her interim maintenance, the husband accused failed to comply with the same, and thus, he being liable to be summoned under Section 31(1) of PWDV Act and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, IPC.
The court stated that the non-compliance of monetary relief, which includes the order granting maintenance or interim maintenance, has to be dealt with as per provisions as stated under Section 20(6) of the Act as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that 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. which includes the manner for enforcement of orders passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Mr. Gautam Panjwani, Mr. Neeraj Jain & Ms. Himanshi Nagpal appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Utkarsh Jaiswal, Mr. Vikas Tiwari, Ms. Shubhangi Negi & Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal represented the respondent.