Delhi High Court: DV Act Meant to Help Victims, Not Jail People for Non-Payment of Maintenance
The Delhi High Court recently clarified that the Domestic Violence (DV) Act is meant to protect and support victims, not to send people to jail for not paying maintenance.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation while cancelling a 2019 trial court order that had summoned a man under Section 31 of the DV Act. The court said this section applies only to violations of protection orders, not to non-payment of maintenance under Section 20.
“The purpose of the Domestic Violence Act is to offer relief and rehabilitation to victims. It is not designed to punish people immediately by sending them to prison for non-payment,” the judge stated.
Maintenance Is a Monetary Relief, Not a Protection Order
The court explained that while protection orders involve safety-related issues like restraining an abusive partner, maintenance orders are about financial support. These two are different under the law.
Therefore, if someone does not pay maintenance, it doesn’t fall under Section 31, which deals only with protection orders.
Instead, other legal methods are available to recover unpaid maintenance. For example:
- The money can be deducted from the defaulter’s salary or recovered from anyone who owes them money.
- In other cases, the person seeking maintenance must use the remedies available under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Background of the Case
In this case, the wife had filed a criminal complaint in 2016, alleging dowry harassment and abuse. Later, under the DV Act, she obtained a court order for maintenance—₹45,000 for herself and ₹55,000 for their daughter.
When her husband allegedly failed to pay, she approached the court again. The trial court then issued a summons under Section 31, leading to the man’s appeal to the High Court.
The husband’s lawyer argued that Section 31 only applies to protection orders, not to monetary relief orders under Section 20 or Section 23 (interim relief).
The wife argued that the man failed to comply with the court’s maintenance order and deserved to be summoned.
Court’s Final Decision
The High Court agreed with the husband, saying the trial court had wrongly applied Section 31. The judge emphasized that maintenance orders do not qualify as “protection orders”, and that non-payment should be handled through proper channels under Section 20(6) of the DV Act and CrPC provisions.
Therefore, the High Court quashed the trial court’s summoning order and allowed the husband’s petition.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
