The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) held that failure to comply with a maintenance order under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), 2005, cannot be pursued through contempt proceedings when specific execution mechanisms are provided under the statute. Reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [1999 KHC 1350], where it was clarified that the initiation of contempt proceedings is not a substitute for execution proceedings, though at times, that purpose may also be achieved.
The Court reiterated that the weapon of contempt shall not be misused, and cannot be used for the execution of a decree or the implementation of an order for which an alternative remedy in law is provided. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the contempt petition filed by the wife (petitioner) alleging wilful disobedience of an earlier Court’s order directing her husband (respondent) to pay monthly maintenance and rent for alternate accommodation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed that in a case of the present nature, comprising a maintenance order, the remedy is to execute the order as per the procedure established by law and not to move a contempt petition. Since the petitioner has approached this Court directly by filing a contempt petition without resorting to any of the remedies under Section 20 of the DV Act or Section 125 of the CrPC, the Single Judge dismissed the contempt petition with liberty to seek execution before the competent forum.
The Bench also explained that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides an elaborate mechanism for enforcing monetary reliefs. Under Section 20(6), a Magistrate may even direct the defaulter’s employer or debtor to deduct payments directly toward maintenance dues. Moreover, Section 28(1) mandates that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18–23 be governed by the Criminal Procedure Code, including its execution provisions.
Briefly, in this case, the petitioner (wife) successfully claimed maintenance and residence under Sections 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Sessions Court as well as the High Court. However, the respondent (husband) allegedly defaulted on these payments for four consecutive months, prompting the wife to file a contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, alleging wilful disobedience of the Court’s order.
Appearances:
Advocates Luke J Chirayil, Navaneeth Krishnan P.K., Jacob Victor, Neha Ramakrishnan, Vysakh C.S., and Zainudheen P., for the PetitionerAdvocate P.T. Dinesh, for the Respondent
