Bengaluru (Aryavarth): In a recent judgment, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court provided clarity on the jurisdiction of law enforcement authorities in cases involving non-payment of maintenance amounts under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court ruling came in response to a quash petition filed by S. Amalraj against an FIR registered against him under Section 31 of the DV Act.
The case revolved around the question of whether the non-payment of maintenance amounts could be considered a breach of a protection order, thereby granting jurisdiction to law enforcement agencies to register a criminal case. The petitioner, Amalraj, argued that the failure to pay maintenance should not be treated as a breach of a protection order, as it falls under the purview of Sections 125 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Amalraj, the husband of the second respondent, Kanikkaimarry, had filed the quash petition to challenge the S.T.C.No.1393 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai. The case was initiated based on an FIR registered for the offense under Section 31 of the DV Act. The petitioner claimed that the lower court had erred in taking cognizance of the case under Section 31, as the non-payment of maintenance did not amount to a breach of a protection order.
The background of the case revealed that Kanikkaimarry had filed a petition under Sections 18 and 19 of the DV Act in 2010, seeking maintenance and protection. The Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, had subsequently passed an order granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to Kanikkaimarry and Rs. 5,000/- to their children, along with a protection order. However, the petitioner appealed the decision, resulting in the maintenance amount being modified by the appellate court.
The petitioner argued that the execution of the maintenance order should be pursued through the distraint warrant or distress warrant procedures outlined in Sections 125 and 128 of the CrPC. According to the petitioner, the non-compliance with the monthly maintenance order should not be treated as a breach of a protection order, and therefore, the registration of the criminal case was invalid.
However, the second respondent, Kanikkaimarry, contended that the non-payment of maintenance amounted to a breach of the protection order, justifying the registration of the criminal case. The government advocate also supported this argument, citing a similar ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Surya Prakash Vs. Rachna.
In the judgment, Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan referred to the principles of statutory interpretation and the objectives of the DV Act. The court highlighted that the purpose of the Act was to provide immediate relief to women and children in distress, prevent destitution and vagrancy, and enforce the fulfillment of maintenance obligations. The court noted that the DV Act transformed the process of executing maintenance orders into a punitive measure to address the changing needs of society.
The court concluded that the non-payment of maintenance amounts could be considered a breach of a protection order under Section 31 of the DV Act. The judgment emphasized the need to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those responsible to support those who are unable to support themselves. It also highlighted that the execution of maintenance orders through court procedures had often proved to be ineffective and time-consuming.
In light of the ruling, the court dismissed the quash petition filed by S. Amalraj and upheld the validity of the criminal case registered against him under Section 31 of the DV Act.
