Ch 5-18. Section 29 – Appeal, Section 31 – Jail term on violation of protection order

Note: By continuing to read below chapter from book you agree to be bound by copyright/IP and the terms and conditions of license (details here)

Section 29. Appeal

There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.

Comment: Respondent can file appeal within 30 days of getting order to sessions court. In general, the advice is to fight the cases well right from the start and don't place hope on appeals and such things. Appeals waste both your time and expenses on lawyer, and if you are unable to win in the lower court because of lack of evidence in your favour, merely appealing is not going to be of much use.

Of course, if the maintenance order is unjustifiably high, or the judge has ignored your good evidences in your opinion, then making an appeal may make sense.

Section 31. Jail term up to 1 year on violation of protection order

31. Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent.-

(1) A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.

(2) The offence under sub-section (1) shall as far as practicable be tried by the Magistrate who had passed the order, the breach of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused.

(3) While framing charges under sub-section (1), the Magistrates may also frame charges under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other provision of that Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under those provisions.

Comment: After discussing all the reliefs which can possibly be given to woman, and the procedures behind them; the law now comes to the important business of how and when to punish the guy in the case, that's you! It makes a jail term up to 1 year possible under this act.

The bottom line. If you have a protection order passed against you, read it carefully. Also read the comments on section 18 - protection order given earlier. Section 18 is very clear that respondent should not communicate with the aggrieved person, so for all readers who insist upon making WhatsApp, telephonic, Facebook chat, or other communication with wife for any reasons whether emotional or spiritual, they are taking a risk!

32. Cognizance and proof.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offence under sub-section (1) of section 31 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.

Section 32 says that the violation of protection order will be treated as cognizable and non-bailable. Which means it is exactly similar to IPC 498A. Before the Arnesh Kumar judgment of Jul 2014 by Supreme Court came into force, police used to arrest without warrant in IPC 498A because it was cognizable. After that judgment, police has started issuing notices under CrPC 41, 41A as the procedure demands instead of arresting blindly after FIR. So at least it's not as big a threat as before.

(2) Upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of section 31 has been committed by the accused.

Above clause is a testimony to the 'success' of feminism in vitiating the standard procedures and norms of justice in most countries. If you have a protection order issued against you, then wife's testimony that you violated the order is enough to convict you under section 31, and ensure some time in jail. Bye bye to any evidence you may have in your favour!

For example, what would happen if your wife said that you came to her house on so and so date and broke the windows of the house, but you have very good evidence with you to prove that you were in a city 300 km away on the date and time mentioned. Will the court still go by the sole testimony? The court can if it wants to because it says "the court may conclude". There is no condition put on the judge to call you for hearing and take your evidence, which is against the principles of natural justice. Thanks to broad public support by men to women empowerment, now some of these same men will have to pay for that collective karma!

<< Prev Ch 5-17. Section 27 - Jurisdiction, Section 28 - Procedure of trial

Table of Contents

Next >> Ch 5-19. Section 36 - Other laws still apply, Section 37 - DV Rules

Section 29. Appeal

Section 31. Jail term up to 1 year on violation of protection order

Footer