Dv act section 31

Amit Jaiswal (Querist) 19 March 2025 This query is : Resolved
mere uper gharelu hinsa ki dhara 31 ke tahat case kiya gya hai ki main gharelu hinsa ke tahat diye gaye gujara bhatta nhi de raha hoon . jbaki order me dhara 18 ke antargat koi bhi order nhi hai to dhara 31 mujh par kaise lagu ho sakti hai. kripya jbab den

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

This discussion addresses a case filed under Section 31 of the DV Act for non-payment of maintenance. While initially questioned, it's clarified that non-payment of maintenance can be considered a breach of a protection order, even if no specific order under Section 18 was initially made. A Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment suggests that Section 31 can be invoked for monetary relief non-compliance, but seeking advice from your legal counsel is crucial for your specific appeal.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 19 March 2025
Section 18 deals with the prohibition of the adult male person from aiding or abetting or committing any act of domestic violence, entering the place of aggrieved person or aggrieved child, attempting to communicate with aggrieved person, alienating any asset, causing violence to dependents, other relatives. Without an order passed under section 18 of the DV act, the court cannot invoke section 31 of the DV act.
Section 31 of the act specifically addresses the offense of violating a protection order or an interim protection order.
Therefore you may verify the details through your advocate and take proper legal action to challenge the petition accoridnlgy

Dr. J C Vashista (Expert) 20 March 2025
The facts posted qua non-payment of maintenance granted and the law stated to have been applied i.e., Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 do not match.
Show the case file to some other local lawyer.

P. Venu (Expert) 21 March 2025
Admittedly, there is justification in invoking Section 31. You may file objection accordingly.

Amit Jaiswal (Querist) 21 March 2025
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC NO . SIXTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTEEN / TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN
16. Section 20 of the Act deals with grant of monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and the losses suffered by aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. Such provision enlarges the scope of domestic violence as defined in Section 3 of the Act. In terms of Section 3 of the Act, the "economic abuse" includes deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources, payment of rental related to shared household and maintenance. Whereas Section 20 includes a loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property as also the maintenance. The grant of monetary relief under Section 20 does not exclude the amount of maintenance which can be awarded in terms of Section 18 of the Act as part of affirmative order in respect of the domestic violence as defined in Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, we find that non-payment of maintenance is a breach of protection order; therefore, Section 31 of the Act can be invoked. Therefore, in respect of first question, it is held that non-payment of maintenance allowance is a breach of protection order for which proceedings under Section 31 of the Act can be invoked.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 21 March 2025
it can be presumed that you have reproduced a portion of the high court in your subsequent post, but you are still not clear about what you ask or want to clarify by the latest post.

Amit Jaiswal (Querist) 21 March 2025
SIR MP HIGH COURT KE YE JUDGEMENT MERE KHILAF ME HAI AUR MERI APEAL MP HIGH COURT ME HI LAGI HAI . MP HIGH COURT TO MONETRY RELIFE ME BHI SECTION 31 ME PUNISH KAR RAHA HAI JABKI MERE GHARELU HINSA KE CASE ME KOI PROTECTION ORDER NAHI HAI

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 22 March 2025
The case papers are to perused for giving any further opinion to your question.

Dr. J C Vashista (Expert) 22 March 2025
What is the opinion and advise of the lawyer engaged / paid by you ? Have you lost faith in your lawyer ? If so, replace him/her immediately.
Your case for maintenace is stated to be in appeal, i.e., advance stage, wherein you should seek advise of local prudent lawyer.
Why do you intend to seek second opinion on this platform except the fact it is available FREE OF COST /

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries