Telangana High Court

C.D.Ravindernath vs Srilatha on 28 April, 2023

Bench: K.Surender

     HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                   AT HYDERABAD
                          *****

Criminal Petition No.7027 OF 2022 Between:

C.D.Ravindernath                                 ... Petitioner
                        And
Srilatha and another.                          ...Respondent
                            AND
            Criminal Petition No.7033 OF 2022
Between:
C.D.Ravindernath & others                   ... Petitioners
                              And
Srilatha and another.                       ...Respondent

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:             28.04.2023
Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No the Judgments?

 2    Whether the copies of judgment
      may be marked to Law                      Yes/No
      Reporters/Journals

 3    Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
      wish to see the fair copy of the          Yes/No
      Judgment?




                                              ________________
                                              K.SURENDER, J

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER + CRL.P. Nos.7027 of 2022 % Dated 28.04.2023

# C.D.Ravindernath ... Petitioner And Srilatha and another. ...Respondent AND Criminal Petition No.7033 OF 2022 Between:

C.D.Ravindernath & others ... Petitioners And Srilatha and another. ...Respondent

! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.Vijaya Kanth

^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad R1

Sri S.Sudershan

Addl. Public Prosecutor for R2 >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 635

2018 CRI.L.J 2545 3 2015 CRI.L.J 1874 4 (2011) 4 SCC 266

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 7027 & 7033 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

1. Criminal Petition No.7027 of 2022 is filed to quash

STC No.4 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil

Judge-cum-XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

2. Criminal Petition No.7033 of 2022 is filed to quash

STC No.3 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil

Judge-cum-XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

3. The short question involved in both the cases is

whether Section 31 of The Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the DVC Act')

which prescribes penalty for breaching 'protection order'

under section 18 of the Act, be extended to prosecution for

beach of orders of maintenance and compensation granted

by the Court under Sections 20 and 22 respectively.

4. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7027 is the

husband of the 1st respondent and petitioners in Criminal

Petition No.7033 of 2022 are the husband, mother-in-law

and brother-in-law of the 1st respondent/wife. The 1st

respondent/wife filed DVC No.46 of 2014 and the Court

had granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to be

paid to the respondent/wife and Rs.20,000/- per month to

the son, which includes medical and educational

expenses. The amount was directed to be deposited into

the account of the respondent/wife. It was also ordered

that compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs to be paid by all the

respondents, who are the husband, mother-in-law and

brother-in-law.

5. For the reason of not paying the compensation

amount as directed and also the maintenance, which was

directed to be paid by the husband, two different

applications were filed under Section 31 of the Act to take

cognizance and punish the petitioners in accordance with

Section 31 of the Act.

6. Learned Magistrate having considered the

applications made by the respondent/wife directed that

STC No.04 of 2022 be registered for not paying

maintenance and STC No.3 of 2022 registered for not

paying compensation, against husband, mother-in-law

and brother-in-law.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that Section 31 of the Act can only be invoked for

breaching of protection order which is granted under

Section 18 of the Act. Section 31 cannot be invoked for

any other violation including not paying maintenance,

compensation or any other such orders passed under the

DVC Act. The direction by the learned Magistrate is bad in

law and has to be set aside. He relied on the judgment of

Kerala High Court in the case of Suneesh v. State of

Kerala1 wherein it was held that Section 31 can be

invoked only for breaching of a protection order and not

for any other reliefs granted under DVC Act.

2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 635

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent/wife would submit that Section 31 of the Act

was considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the

case of Surya Prakash v. Smt.Rachna2 and Karnataka

High Court in the judgment of Vincent Shanthakumar v.

Smt.Christina Geetha Rani3 and argued that the Court

can invoke provisions under Section 31 of the Act for not

paying maintenance. A purposive interpretation has to be

given to the provisions of DVC Act and in view of the

definition of domestic violence, the prosecution would be

maintainable under Section 31 of the Act for not paying

maintenance and compensation. Accordingly, prayed to

dismiss the petitions.

9. Under DVC Act, several reliefs can be granted. The

kind of reliefs that can be granted are segregated and

specifically mentioned under Sections 18 to 22 and also

2018 CRI.L.J 2545

2015 CRI.L.J 1874

the power to grant interim and ex-parte orders under

Section 23 of the Act.

10. Section 18 of the Act deals with protection orders

when the Court is satisfied that domestic violence has

taken place or likely to take place, protection order in

favour of aggrieved person can be passed.

11. Under Section 19 of the Act, the Court if satisfied

that the domestic violence has taken place, pass orders

regarding the right to be given shelter/ residence.

12. Under Section 20 of the Act, the Court can direct the

respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses

incurred and loss suffered by the aggrieved person or the

child as a result of domestic violence. The said monetary

relief would include loss of earnings, medical expenses etc.

and maintenance

13. Under Section 21 of the Act, the Court while

considering the application either for protection orders or

for any other relief, can grant temporary custody of a child

to the aggrieved person or any person making an

application on her behalf.

14. Under Section 22 of the Act, in addition to the said

reliefs under Sections 18 to 21, the Magistrate, on

application being made by the respondent to pay

compensation and damages for injuries which include

mental torture, emotional distress caused on account of

the acts of domestic violence.

15. The Legislature has though it fit to segregate reliefs

that can be sought under DVC Act. The reliefs that can be

granted by a Court under DVC Act are mentioned under

Sections 18 to 22. By applying the rule of literal

construction, the words of the statute have to be

understood in their natural ordinary sense in accordance

with their grammatical meaning, unless it leads to some

absurdity or if the intent of the Legislature suggests

otherwise. The words of the statute must prima facie be

given their ordinary meaning. In the case of B. Premanand

"24. The literal rule of interpretation really means that there should be no interpretation. In other words, we should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its language. We may mention here that the literal rule of interpretation is not only followed by Judges and lawyers, but it is also followed by the layman in his ordinary life. To give an illustration, if a person says "this is a pencil", then he means that it is a pencil; and it is not that when he says that the object is a pencil, he means that it is a horse, donkey or an elephant. In other words, the literal rule of interpretation simply means that we mean what we say and we say what we mean. If we do not follow the literal rule of interpretation, social life will become impossible, and we will not understand each other. If we say that a certain object is a book, then we mean it is a book. If we say it is a book, but we mean it is a horse, table or an elephant, then we will not be able to communicate with each other. Life will become impossible. Hence, the meaning of the literal rule of interpretation is simply that we mean what we say and we say what we mean."

16. A Court cannot read into the provisions of an

enactment to arrive at a different meaning from what the

words in the statute suggest. The intention can only be

inferred from the words used and cannot draw inferences

contrary to the meaning of the words, unless permitted by

law to refer to aids to interpretation.

(2011) 4 SCC 266

17. Under the DVC Act, as already stated supra the

reliefs are segregated under different provisions from

Sections 18 to 22 of the Act and there is a clear

demarcation. If the legislature had intended that any

breach of the order made while granting reliefs under

Sections 18 to 22 be punishable under Section 31, the

same would have been said in clear terms. Since there is

no ambiguity in any of the reliefs that can be granted

under the DVC Act and clearly demarcated, the Courts

need not search for any other interpretation other than the

actual meaning of the words.

18. Section 31 of the DVC Act prescribes penalty for

breach of protection order made under Section 18. The

said provision cannot be read as a penalty for residence

orders under Section 19 or monetary reliefs under Section

20 or custody orders under Section 21 or compensation

order under Section 22.

19. Learned Magistrate has relied on Rule 15(7) of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006

(for short 'the Rules of 2006').

"Rule 15(7) Any resistance to the enforcement of the orders of the court under the Act by the respondent or any other person purportedly acting on his behalf shall be deemed to be a breach of protection order or an interim protection order covered under the Act."

20. Rule 15 is for 'Breach of Protection Orders' granted

under section 18 of the Act. Under Rule 15(7), if there is

any resistance to the enforcement of the protection order

as ordered by the Court either the respondent or any other

person acting on his behalf can be dealt with under

Section 31 of the Act. It is incorrect as found by the

learned Magistrate that Rule 15(7) of the Rules, applies to

every violation under DVC Act and can be prosecuted

under Section 31 of the Act.

21. With great respect, the findings and interpretation in

Surya Prakash v. Smt.Rachna's case (supra) of Madhya

Pradesh Court and Vincent Shanthakumar v.