The Delhi High Court recently ruled that failure to pay maintenance under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act does not warrant imprisonment. The court clarified that the Act is designed to provide protection and support to victims, rather than sending individuals to jail for not complying with maintenance orders.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma explained that Section 31 of the DV Act deals with violations of “protection orders,” which is different from the failure to pay maintenance, a “monetary relief” provided under Section 20 of the Act. The court noted that the purpose of the Act is to support and rehabilitate victims of domestic violence, not to criminalize the aggressor for non-payment of maintenance immediately.
“The goal of the Act is to provide protection and financial support to victims. Imprisoning individuals for not paying maintenance is not its primary aim. Instead, the focus is on ensuring that victims receive the monetary support they need,” the order stated.
The court added that there are specific legal remedies available for situations where maintenance is not paid. For salaried individuals or those owed money, unpaid maintenance can be collected directly from the employer or debtor. In other cases, victims should pursue remedies through the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
As a result, the court overturned a March 2019 order issued by an additional sessions judge that summoned a man under Section 31 (1) of the DV Act for allegedly failing to pay maintenance to his estranged wife.
The case began when the wife filed a criminal complaint in 2016, accusing the husband of dowry harassment and emotional abuse. She later sought maintenance under the DV Act and secured an order requiring the husband to pay ₹45,000 per month to her and ₹55,000 for their daughter. After the husband allegedly stopped making payments, the wife asked the trial court to initiate a criminal case. The court then summoned the husband under Section 31 of the DV Act.
The husband challenged the summons in the Delhi High Court, arguing that Section 31 only applies to violations of protection orders, not non-payment of maintenance, which is addressed under Section 20 and Section 23 (interim relief) of the Act.
The wife contended that the trial court’s summoning order was justified, as the husband had repeatedly failed to pay maintenance despite the court’s instructions.
However, the Delhi High Court sided with the husband, ruling that non-compliance with maintenance orders falls under Section 20(6) of the DV Act and relevant CrPC provisions. Section 31 pertains specifically to breaches of protection orders, not financial relief. The court emphasized that maintenance orders cannot be categorized as protection orders under Section 31.
Consequently, the Delhi High Court quashed the trial court’s order summoning the husband under Section 31 of the DV Act.
Case Title: Delhi High Court: Domestic Violence Act Focus on Victims’ Upliftment (2023)
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==
