IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.1316 of 2010 Between: Sri S. Appa Rao .. Petitioner AND S. Dhanalakshmi and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri K. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor for the 2nd respondent. 2. The criminal petition has been directed against the proceedings in Criminal M.P. No.2121 of 2009 in D.V.C. No.4 of 2008 against the petitioner. 3. The said miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) stating that in spite of D.V.C. No.4 of 2008 being allowed partly on 18-02-2009, the petitioner herein neither returned the dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/- nor paid the monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- even after the lapse of time fixed by the order. Therefore, the 1st respondent herein desired the Court to arrest the petitioner herein and to be fined. 4. The trial Court after taking the miscellaneous petition on file, secured the appearance of the petitioner herein who did not file any counter and failed to appear before the Court resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant to secure his presence on 14-09-2009. The petitioner herein was apprehended in execution of the non-bailable warrant and was remanded to judicial custody, which made him approach this Court with this petition. 5. He claimed that the 1st respondent herein filed Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2009 against the order in D.V.C. No.4 of 2008 and claimed his absence before the trial Court to be due to suffering from jaundice since three months earlier and stated that the miscellaneous petition is not maintainable under Section 31 of the special statute, as there was no allegation of any breach of any protection order granted under Section 18 of the Act. For enforcement of an order granted under Section 20 of the Act, no proceedings could have been taken under Section 31 and it was only under sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act that the 1st respondent could have proceeded against the petitioner herein. Therefore, he desired the further proceedings in Criminal M.P. No.2121 of 2009 to be quashed. 6. At the time of issuance of notice to the 1st respondent herein in this criminal petition on 16-02-2010, a learned Judge of this Court considered Crl.P.M.P. No.1244 of 2010 and after referring to the factual background, the learned Judge referred to Section 20 sub-section (6) of the Act, which ought to have been followed by the Magistrate. The learned Judge, therefore, directed release of the petitioner herein on bail forthwith on execution of a personal bond for Rs.5,000/-. 7. The point for consideration is whether the prayer for arrest and fine against the petitioner herein in Criminal M.P. No.2121 of 2009 is sustainable ? 8. Point: The Criminal M.P. No.2121 of 2009 was filed by the 1st respondent herein complaining about non-compliance with the direction in D.V.C. No.4 of 2008 to return Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry and to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/-. Section 31 of the Act provides for penalty for breach of protection order by the respondent and the specific and unambiguous language of the provision would not have enabled extending the same to any other orders passed under Sections 19 to 23 of the Act. The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act, which made a breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, an offence under the Act prescribing consequential punishment cannot, by means of any logical extension, be construed to have created a punishable offence in the event of non-compliance with any other orders granted under Sections 19 to 23 of the Act. The legislation is a self-contained legislation and provided for whatever the Legislature has desired to provide for more effective protection of rights of the women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 9. In so far as monetary reliefs provided for by Section 20 of the Act are concerned, it is only sub-section (6) of Section 20 that provides for a direction by the Magistrate to the employer or a debtor of the respondent to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent upon failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1). The amount so directed to be paid may have to be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent under the provision. A perusal of the various provisions of the Act shows that appropriate remedial measures have been designed in the respective provisions themselves like for example sub-sections (4), (5), (7) and (8) of Section 19 of the Act. 10. The procedure for the proceedings under Section 20 and the other provisions were directed to be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Section 28 of the Act. However, it is pleaded that when a specific procedure has been laid down by sub-section (6) of Section 20, the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in this regard probably cannot be availed and the remedy provided under sub- section (6) of Section 20 alone has to be taken recourse to in the first instance by the 1st respondent herein for enforcement of the order in D.V.C. No.4 of 2008 in so far as the monetary reliefs are concerned. No final opinion is being expressed, hence, concerning the availability of any other mode of enforcement with reference to the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is applicable to such proceedings by virtue of Section 28 of the special statute. 11. So far as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned, therefore, the matter has to be remitted back to the trial Court to follow Section 20 sub-section (6) of the Act as already observed by the learned Judge in his orders on 16-02- 2010. It is for the 1st respondent to place before the trial Court the details of the employer or any debtors of the petitioner herein before the trial Court to enable the Magistrate to take further action in this regard. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner shall continue to be on bail till the final determination of the Criminal M.P. No.2121 of 2009 in D.V.C. No.4 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in terms of the orders of this Court dated 16-02-2010 in Crl.P.M.P. No.1244 of 2010 and the trial Court shall comply with the procedure prescribed by sub- section (6) of Section 20 of the Act in dealing with the said Criminal M.P. No.2121 of 2009 and determine the same in accordance with law. The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-12-2011 Svv