Failure to Pay Maintenance is Not a Crime under Section 31 of DV Act: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Wife’s Plea for Husband’s Conviction

“Non-Payment of Money Is Not a Breach of Protection Order”, In a judgment that reaffirms the strict interpretation of penal provisions, the Karnataka High Court declined to criminalize non-payment of interim maintenance under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act). Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar observed that “the penalty provided under Section 31 of the D.V. Act would attract only for breach of protection orders passed under Section 18 and does not apply to maintenance orders under Section 20.”

The Court held that the conviction of the husband for failing to pay interim maintenance of ₹3,000 per month was legally unsustainable. The appeal by the husband had been allowed by the Sessions Court, and the wife’s revision petition seeking restoration of conviction was dismissed.

This ruling came in a case where the petitioner, Roopa B.C., had approached the court after the Sessions Judge set aside the Magistrate’s order sentencing her husband to six months’ imprisonment for default in paying interim maintenance. She argued that failure to pay maintenance amounted to “economic abuse” under the Act and should be treated as a violation of a “protection order” under Section 18, thus attracting punishment under Section 31.

Rejecting this contention, Justice Amarannavar stated emphatically, “On a plain reading of Section 18 of the D.V. Act in the light of definition found under Section 2(o), it can be definitely said that the order of granting maintenance does not amount to ‘protection order’ and violation of the same will not attract the provisions of Section 31.”

The Court relied on the well-established principle of strict construction of penal statutes. Quoting the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., the Court held, “When the words in a statute are clear, plain, and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences.”

Justice Amarannavar emphasized, “Section 31 speaks only about protection order and interim protection order. It does not speak about monetary orders. If the legislature intended to criminalize non-payment of monetary relief, it would have clearly said so. Courts cannot stretch the meaning of the penal provision.”

The Court found itself in agreement with the view taken by several High Courts across the country, including Kerala, Delhi, Telangana, and Himachal Pradesh, which have consistently held that breach of monetary relief does not fall under the penal sanction of Section 31.

In its detailed judgment, the Court referred to the Kerala High Court’s decision in Suneesh v. State of Kerala, the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Anish Pramod Patel v. Kiran Jyot Maini, and the Telangana High Court’s pronouncement in C.D. Ravindernath v. Srilatha. All these decisions consistently held that the penal consequence under Section 31 is limited to violations of protection orders under Section 18.

Justice Amarannavar clarified the legislative architecture of the D.V. Act stating, “Separate reliefs are provided under Sections 18 to 22—protection orders under Section 18, residence orders under Section 19, monetary reliefs under Section 20, custody orders under Section 21, and compensation orders under Section 22. Penal provision under Section 31 is specifically tied only to Section 18.”

Rejecting contrary views, including the earlier Karnataka High Court judgment in Vincent Shanthakumar v. Christina Geetha Rani, the Court observed, “The view in Vincent Shanthakumar cannot be accepted. Monetary reliefs under Section 20 cannot be clubbed with protection orders under Section 18 through judicial interpretation.”

The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that penal provisions must be construed narrowly, stating, “Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed because they deprive a citizen of liberty, and no act which does not fall within the purview of the penal statute can be added by way of interpretation.”

In conclusion, Justice Amarannavar ruled, “Non-payment of interim or final maintenance amounts to breach of monetary relief, not protection order, and cannot attract prosecution under Section 31. The proper remedy lies in recovery mechanisms under the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Summing up the decision, the Court dismissed the revision petition, effectively affirming the acquittal of the respondent husband by the appellate court.

Date of Decision: 2 July 2025