Interim and final orders for monetary relief under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are among the most commonly granted reliefs in Delhi's magistrate courts — and among the most commonly defied. The Act anticipated this. It builds in a dedicated recovery route against the respondent's employer and debtors, and, through its procedural bridge to the criminal code, lets the aggrieved person invoke the same enforcement machinery that backs maintenance orders. This explainer maps the options when payment stops.
Three routes to recovery
The Magistrate directs the respondent’s employer or debtor to pay the aggrieved person directly. Salary is intercepted at source; receivables are redirected before they reach the respondent. This is the fastest route where the respondent is salaried.
Through Section 28 DV Act and Rule 6(5) of the 2006 Rules, monetary orders are enforced the way maintenance orders are: a warrant to levy the amount as if it were a fine, attachment of movables, and imprisonment on persistent default — which punishes, but does not discharge, the arrears.
Breach of a protection order or interim protection order is a cognizable, punishable offence. Its primary field is protective and residence directions; using it for bare money defaults is contested terrain, so it supplements rather than replaces the first two routes.
Section 20(6) in practice
The direct-payment power is the DV Act’s most underused tool. Its utility lies in bypassing the respondent altogether: once the employer is directed to remit a portion of salary to the aggrieved person, compliance no longer depends on the respondent’s cooperation. Applications should identify the employer accurately — name, address, the respondent’s designation and, where known, salary particulars — and ask that the direction continue month to month until arrears and current relief are satisfied. For self-employed respondents, the same clause reaches debtors: parties who owe the respondent money under contracts, rent or invoices can be directed to pay the aggrieved person instead.
The execution route, step by step
One limitation period deserves attention: the maintenance machinery carries a first-proviso discipline requiring warrants to be sought within one year of the amount falling due. Enforcement applications under the DV Act are best filed promptly and renewed periodically rather than allowed to accumulate years of arrears before the first recovery step.
Strategic choices
Salaried respondent: lead with Section 20(6). An employer direction is self-executing and embarrassingly visible, which itself induces compliance.
Business respondent: combine the recovery warrant with disclosure — seek directions for the respondent to file an affidavit of income, assets and receivables, so that debtors and attachable assets are identified on oath.
Parallel proceedings: where maintenance also runs under Section 144 BNSS or Section 24 HMA, keep the computation transparent across fora. Courts adjust overlapping amounts; enforcement credibility depends on clean accounting.
| Provision | Function |
|---|---|
| Section 20, DV Act | Monetary relief — loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss caused by destruction or removal of property, and maintenance |
| Section 20(6), DV Act | Direction to employer or debtor of the respondent to pay the aggrieved person directly |
| Section 28, DV Act & Rule 6(5), DV Rules 2006 | Procedural bridge to the criminal code; maintenance-style enforcement |
| Section 144(3) BNSS (formerly 125(3) CrPC) | Warrant to levy arrears as a fine; imprisonment on default |
| Section 31, DV Act | Offence of breach of protection order or interim protection order |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 20(6) of the DV Act allow?
On the respondent's failure to pay monetary relief, the Magistrate may direct the respondent's employer, or a debtor of the respondent, to pay the aggrieved person directly — out of salary or wages due, or out of the debt owed to the respondent. The amount so paid may be adjusted against the monetary relief ordered. It is a statutory garnishee mechanism built into the Act itself.
Can a warrant issue for unpaid DV Act amounts?
Yes. Section 28 of the DV Act applies the criminal procedure code to proceedings under Sections 12, 18 to 23 and 31, and Rule 6(5) of the 2006 Rules directs that applications under Section 12 be dealt with in the manner of maintenance proceedings. That imports the enforcement mode now found in Section 144(3) BNSS (formerly Section 125(3) CrPC): a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner of a fine, and, on continued default, imprisonment which does not wipe out the arrears.
Is non-payment of monetary relief an offence under Section 31?
Section 31 makes breach of a protection order, or an interim protection order, a cognizable offence. Whether a bare default in monetary relief alone attracts Section 31 has produced differing judicial views; the safer enforcement routes for money are Section 20(6) directions and the maintenance-style execution, with Section 31 reserved for breaches of protective directions.
What should an enforcement application contain?
The order and its service record; a computation of arrears, month by month; what is known of the respondent's employer, bank accounts and receivables; and the relief sought in the alternative — direct-payment directions to the employer under Section 20(6), a recovery warrant, and attachment. Precision in the arrears schedule shortens the hearing considerably.