A single judge of Dharwad bench of Karnataka HC held that, the protection order does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act.

From Paras 14-17,

14. In the present case, provisions of Section 31 of the D.V. Act was pressed into service before the Trial Court essentially on ground that of arrears of the maintenance was not paid and therefore it paved for penal action under Section 31 of the D.V Act. The learned Magistrate has construed that even the non-payment of arrears of maintenance amounts to the violation of protection order and thereby Section 31 of the D.V. Act could be invoked.
15. Providing two separate reliefs, one under Section 18 of the D.V. Act for protection and another for monetary relief under Section 20 of the D.V. Act will have to be taken into consideration while analyzing the scope of Section 31 of the D.V. Act. If protection order was inclusive of monetary relief of granting maintenance, Section 20 of the D.V. Act would not have been separately provided.
16. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the Mr. Francis Cyril C Cunha Vs. Smt Lydia Jane D’Cunha(supra) considering similar case has exhaustively dealt with the scope of Section 31 of the D.V. Act in the light of Sections 2(o), 18 and 20 of the D.V. Act and held that the protection order does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act.
17. In view of the matter, the approach of learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 31 of the D.V. Act is a glaring legal error and hence, the same will have to be set aside. Consequently, the proceedings against this petition in C.C.No/1/2022 pending on the file of the IV JMFC, Belagavi are requires to be quashed.

Index of DV judgments here.