Sentence under Section 31 DV Act reduced to period undergone to facilitate post-conviction matrimonial reconciliation.

The petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) were embroiled in matrimonial litigation.

On 29.04.2017, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Agar, directed the petitioner to pay ₹2,000/- monthly maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Following the petitioner’s failure to pay and the subsequent dismissal of his appeals and revisions, the respondent filed for enforcement under Section 31 of the Act.

On 29.11.2018, the JMFC convicted the petitioner under Section 31 and sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000/-.

The petitioner evaded arrest until 27.11.2025.

While incarcerated, the parties reached an amicable settlement to reside together and sought quashing of all prior proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the orders of maintenance and subsequent conviction for breach of protection order can be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court solely on the basis of a belated settlement between the parties

2. Whether the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to modify a sentence of imprisonment to serve the ends of justice following a matrimonial reconciliation

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) to ensure complete justice between parties in matrimonial disputes

It applied Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which provides penalties for the breach of a protection order

The Court maintained that orders passed following due procedure and affirmed by superior courts cannot be quashed merely due to a subsequent settlement

However, it recognized the principle of using inherent jurisdiction to mitigate sentences to facilitate matrimonial harmony

The Court observed that the original protection order and the order of conviction under Section 31 were legally sound, based on evidence, and affirmed through the appellate and revisional stages

Consequently, it refused to quash the orders as the petitioner had deliberately evaded the law for years

However, the Court took cognizance of the Principal Registrar’s report, which verified that the parties had voluntarily settled their dispute and intended to resume their marital life

Reasoning that continued incarceration might jeopardize this reconciliation, the Court determined that while the conviction remained valid, the sentence required modification

It concluded that reducing the imprisonment to the period already undergone would satisfy the "ends of justice" without nullifying the legal findings of domestic violence

However, acting under its inherent jurisdiction, the Court modified the order dated 29.11.2018, reducing the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone

The petitioner was ordered to be released subject to the payment of the fine amount of ₹5,000/-, while all other conditions of the original order remained intact

The petition was disposed of with these directions