The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that Section 31 of Domestic Violence Act applies only to breaches of protection orders. It does not cover violations of maintenance, compensation, or residence orders.
Case Background
Akshay Thakur filed a petition to quash an FIR registered against him under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. His wife had accused him of not complying with court orders related to maintenance, compensation, and separate accommodation.
The trial court, based on her complaint, directed the police to register an FIR against him under Section 31 of the DV Act.
Petitioner’s Stance
Thakur argued that Section 31 deals strictly with the breach of protection orders under Section 18 of the Act. He pointed out that the orders for maintenance and residence fall under Sections 19 and 20, which do not qualify as protection orders. He claimed the FIR was invalid and based on a misinterpretation of the law.
Court’s Ruling
The High Court agreed with the petitioner. It emphasized that Section 31 only penalizes violations of protection or interim protection orders. The court cited statutory interpretation principles, stating that criminal laws must be strictly interpreted.
It referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. (2022), which emphasized the primacy of literal interpretation when the language of a statute is clear.
Final Verdict
The court found the FIR invalid. It ruled that the trial court erred in ordering the police to register it. Since the breach involved monetary and residence orders, not protection orders, Section 31 did not apply.
The High Court quashed the FIR and allowed the petition.
