![](https://gumlet.assettype.com/barandbench%2F2020-03%2Fa8361b91-a049-4e13-ab8b-34a8503d0cec%2FDelhi_High_Court.jpg?w=1200&ar=40%3A21&auto=format%2Ccompress&ogImage=true&mode=crop&enlarge=true&overlay=false&overlay_position=bottom&overlay_width=100)
Pertinently, the judge further observed that the DV Act is not aimed at sending aggressors to prisoners straightaway for a lapse in paying maintenance.
“The aim of the Act was, therefore, to provide for protection, rehabilitation and upliftment of victims of domestic violence, in contrast to sending the aggressor to prisons. In other words, the purpose behind enforcement of monetary orders would be to provide monetary sustenance to the victim, and not the incarceration of the aggressor. The idea is not to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against the aggressor i.e. respondent as defined in the Act for non-payment of maintenance and to send such person to prison forthwith,” the order stated.
Source: Barandbench