Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) applies only to breaches of protection orders, not to non-compliance with maintenance, compensation, or residence orders. 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Akshay Thakur v. State of H.P. & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Akshay Thakur v. State of H.P. & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• The petitioner, Akshay Thakur, filed a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 9/2018 dated 7th January 2018 registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, for an alleged offence punishable under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 
• The complainant, Pooja Devi, had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali. 
• In her application, the complainant asserted that the learned Trial Court had previously directed the petitioner on 30th June 2017 to provide separate accommodation, compensation of ₹10,000, and maintenance of ₹4,000 per month. 
• The complainant alleged that the petitioner failed to pay the arrears of maintenance amounting to ₹12,000 and the compensation amount of ₹10,000, despite her requests. 
• The learned Trial Court, on 30th December 2017, passed an order sending the application to the Station House Officer, Police Station Manali, under Section 156(3) of CrPC with directions to submit a status report. 
• Following the directions of the Trial Court, the police registered an FIR against the petitioner under Section 31 of the DV Act. 
• The police conducted an investigation, found violation of Section 31 of the DV Act, and subsequently submitted a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court. 
• The petitioner married the complainant on 20th January 2014, and differences subsequently arose between the parties. 
• The petitioner contended that the complainant had filed a false case under Section 12 of the DV Act, and the learned Trial Court had erred in directing registration of an FIR for non-compliance with monetary and residence orders. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that Section 31 of the DV Act specifically penalizes the breach of a "protection order" or an "interim protection order" as defined in Section 2(o) read with Section 18 of the Act. 
• The Court noted that the DV Act clearly segregates different types of reliefs under separate provisions (Sections 18-22), including protection orders, residence orders, monetary reliefs, custody orders, and compensation orders. 
• Applying the principle of literal interpretation, the Court held that when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain meaning irrespective of consequences. 
• The Court emphasized that criminal statutes must be strictly construed as they deprive citizens of life and liberty, and no act which does not fall within the purview of the criminal statute can be added by way of interpretation. 
• The Court observed that had the legislature intended Section 31 to apply to all orders under the DV Act, it would have explicitly stated so rather than specifically mentioning only "protection orders" and "interim protection orders." 
• The Court concluded that non-compliance with monetary orders and residence orders cannot constitute an offence under Section 31 of the DV Act, which is specifically limited to breach of protection orders passed under Section 18. 
• Accordingly, the Court found that the learned Magistrate erred in referring to the application to the police under Section 156(3) of CrPC for registration of an FIR for breach of monetary and residence orders. 

What is Section 31 of DV Act? 

• Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 creates a specific statutory offence for the breach of a protection order or an interim protection order by the respondent. 
• The provision prescribes a maximum punishment of imprisonment for a term up to one year, or a fine extending to twenty thousand rupees, or both, for contravention of such orders. 
• Section 31(2) establishes jurisdictional preference by stipulating that the offence shall, as far as practicable, be tried by the same Magistrate who issued the protection order that has allegedly been breached. 
• The provision in Section 31(3) empowers the Magistrate to frame additional charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) or other relevant provisions of the Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, if the facts disclose the commission of offences under those provisions. 
• This section creates a mechanism for enforcement of protection orders through criminal sanctions, thereby strengthening the protective framework established under the Act. 
• The provision must be strictly construed as it creates a penal consequence, and its application is limited specifically to breaches of protection orders or interim protection orders as defined under the Act. 
• The plain language of Section 31 does not extend its applicability to other orders that may be passed under different provisions of the Act, such as residence orders, monetary relief orders, or compensation orders. 
• The legislative intent appears to distinguish between different types of orders passed under the Act, with specific penal consequences attached only to the breach of protection orders aimed at preventing acts of domestic violence.