Section 31 Domestic Violence Act in 2026: Breach of Protection Order, Maintenance Default, FIR, Bail & Conflicting High Court Law

By Adv. Govind Bali | Fastrack Legal Solutions LLP

Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act is frequently invoked after a respondent allegedly disobeys an order passed in domestic-violence proceedings. It is also frequently misunderstood. The statute creates different categories of relief—protection orders under Section 18, residence orders under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20, custody orders under Section 21 and compensation under Section 22. Section 31, however, expressly refers to breach of a protection order or interim protection order. That wording has produced a significant line of conflicting High Court authority.

Official statutory text: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — India Code.

1. What does Section 31 actually punish?

Section 31(1) provides that breach of a protection order, or interim protection order, by the respondent is an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or fine which may extend to ₹20,000, or both. Section 31(2) contemplates trial, as far as practicable, by the Magistrate who passed the order. Section 31(3) permits additional charges under other penal provisions where the facts disclose those offences.

This is important because Section 31 is not drafted as a general statement that every breach of every DV order is an offence. The definition in Section 2(o) ties the expression “protection order” to an order made under Section 18.

2. Protection order, residence order and monetary relief are different statutory remedies

3. Delhi High Court: maintenance default is not, by itself, Section 31 breach

In Anish Pramod Patel v. Kiran Jyot Maini, the Delhi High Court analysed the statutory distinction between Sections 18 and 20 and held that an order granting maintenance or interim maintenance under Section 20 is monetary relief and cannot simply be treated as a “protection order” for Section 31. The judgment emphasised the separate statutory architecture for protection orders and monetary relief.

For Delhi practice, this remains a highly important authority. A party seeking recovery of unpaid maintenance should ordinarily focus on the enforcement route applicable to monetary relief—including Section 20(6), execution/recovery machinery and other legally available enforcement measures—rather than assuming Section 31 automatically criminalises every unpaid instalment.

4. Karnataka High Court reaffirmed the narrow approach in 2025

In Smt. Roopa B.C. v. Sri Tharesh, decided on 2 July 2025, the Karnataka High Court held that an order granting maintenance does not amount to a protection order and that violation of a Section 20 maintenance order does not attract Section 31 merely by reason of non-payment. The Court relied on the distinct legislative treatment of Sections 18 and 20 and referred to the Delhi view as well.

5. Himachal Pradesh High Court also distinguished Section 31 from monetary/residence relief

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in a 2025 decision similarly held that the penal provision in Section 31 is attracted to breach of protection orders rather than automatically extending to maintenance, compensation or residence directions. The Court stressed that a penal provision should not be expanded beyond its statutory language merely because the underlying default is serious.

6. Madhya Pradesh approach: a broader purposive interpretation

A different line of authority emerged from Surya Prakash v. Rachna, where the Madhya Pradesh High Court adopted a broader reading rooted in the concept of economic abuse and held that non-payment of maintenance could, in the circumstances considered there, amount to breach attracting Section 31. That reasoning has continued to influence later decisions.

7. Allahabad High Court, August 2026: broader view revived

In Mayank Srivastava v. State of U.P., decided on 14 August 2026, the Allahabad High Court relied on the broader line of authority and held that Section 31 could be invoked in the maintenance-default context before it. This makes the issue especially important in 2026: the High Courts are not speaking with one voice.

8. What breaches clearly fit Section 31?

The strongest Section 31 case is one involving a specific Section 18 protection order or interim protection order and a clear, identifiable act prohibited by that order—for example, contacting the aggrieved person despite an express restraint, entering a prohibited location, threatening or communicating in breach of a restraining direction, or committing another act expressly specified in the protection order.

The prosecution still has to establish the order, its communication/knowledge, the alleged breach, the respondent’s identity and the factual ingredients necessary for criminal liability.

9. Does every technical violation justify arrest or conviction?

No. Criminal liability must still be adjudicated according to law. The prosecution should not be reduced to merely producing the prior DV order and asserting non-compliance. The nature of the direction, proof of breach, knowledge, factual context and available defence remain relevant. Bail questions are also determined under ordinary criminal-law principles applicable to the proceeding.

10. Can Section 31 be used for breach of a residence order?

A residence order under Section 19 is a distinct statutory remedy. Where the alleged conduct also violates an independently framed Section 18 protection direction, Section 31 analysis may arise through the protection component. But breach of a stand-alone residence direction should not be mechanically labelled a Section 31 offence without examining the exact order and binding authority.

11. What if the order combines protection, residence and monetary relief?

Many DV orders are composite. The correct approach is to identify which operative paragraph was breached and under which statutory power that paragraph was made. A composite order does not convert every monetary or residential clause into a Section 18 protection order merely because all relief appears in one document.

12. Maintenance enforcement where Section 31 is not available

Where the binding law treats maintenance as Section 20 monetary relief rather than Section 31 protection-order breach, the aggrieved person is not left without remedy. Depending on the order and forum, enforcement may involve directions under Section 20(6), recovery through the employer/debtor, execution machinery, attachment, arrears proceedings or other remedies recognised by law.

See our detailed resources on maintenance arrears recovery, salary attachment for unpaid maintenance, and contempt vs execution in matrimonial cases.

13. Can a Section 31 case be quashed?

Quashing depends on the facts and the governing procedural provision. A challenge may arise where the alleged breach is of an order that does not legally fall within Section 31, where the complaint does not disclose the statutory ingredients, where the order itself has been stayed/set aside, or where continuation would amount to abuse of process. Merits disputes about whether the breach actually occurred may, however, require trial rather than summary quashing.

14. Evidence checklist for the complainant

• certified/court-authenticated copy of the protection order;
• proof that the respondent had knowledge of the order;
• exact operative clause allegedly breached;
• messages, call records, CCTV, witnesses or other proof of prohibited contact/conduct;
• police/DD entries where made;
• chronology distinguishing repeated breaches;
• proof that the order remained operative and unstayed.

15. Defence checklist for the respondent

• identify whether the order is actually under Section 18, Section 19, Section 20 or another provision;
• check whether the binding High Court treats that category as capable of Section 31 prosecution;
• verify service/knowledge;
• test whether the alleged act falls within the operative wording;
• preserve full communications rather than isolated screenshots;
• place any stay, modification, compliance or subsequent order on record;
• do not ignore the original DV order merely because the Section 31 case is disputed.

16. Frequently asked questions

Is breach of a DV protection order a criminal offence?

Yes. Section 31 expressly criminalises breach of a protection order or interim protection order.

Is non-payment of DV maintenance always an offence under Section 31?

No universal answer is presently safe. Delhi, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh authorities support the narrower view that Section 20 maintenance is distinct from a Section 18 protection order, while Madhya Pradesh and the Allahabad High Court in August 2026 have supported broader reasoning in relevant cases.

Can Section 31 be filed for breach of a residence order?

Not automatically. The exact statutory source and operative terms must be examined, particularly where no separate Section 18 direction was breached.

What is the punishment?

Section 31 permits imprisonment up to one year, fine up to ₹20,000, or both, subject to conviction.

Can other criminal charges be added?

Section 31(3) allows other charges where the underlying facts disclose those offences.

17. Practitioner conclusion

Section 31 is an enforcement provision with criminal consequences, but its reach must be analysed with statutory precision. In 2026, the most important practical point is the live divergence between High Courts on monetary default. In Delhi, the safer current starting point remains the distinction drawn in Anish Pramod Patel: Section 18 protection orders and Section 20 monetary relief are different statutory categories. Parties should therefore identify the operative clause, binding precedent and proper enforcement mechanism before choosing between prosecution, execution, recovery, modification or appellate challenge.