Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60867 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42086 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Soni Alias Rajendra Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Chaudhary,Ela Pandey,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Jay Bahadur Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.1, Prayagraj in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2024 in between Rajendra Kumar Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others and order dated 06.08.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Prayagraj in Complaint Case No.330/2023 in between Runjhun Verma Vs. Rajendra Kumar Soni u/s 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he happens to be the father-in-law of O.P. No.2 and the marriage of the son of the applicant stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 17.01.2017, however, on 27.06.2022, the son of the applicant and the son of O.P. No.2 expired. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that a complaint under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the D.V. Act, 2005 stood initiated by O.P. No.2. Thereafter on 14.03.2024, the application under Section 23 of D.V. Act stood allowed, whereby the applicant was directed to pay the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- to O.P. No.2 and Rs.2000/- as interim maintenance to the two daughters. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 06.08.2024, an order for recovery warrant of Rs.70,000/- was passed and the said order was carried in appeal being Crl. Appeal no.137 of 2024, which came to be rejected on 08.11.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that the applicant is not in a position to make such a payment and further the O.P. No.2 is already with the applicant in a shared household and all the expenses which have been incurred are being paid by the applicant. He further submits that he does not possess so many shops, as has been alleged by the O.P. No.2, and he is an advocate only. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that first of all the order dated 14.03.2024 passed in the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act relatable to the disposal of the application under Section 23 of the D.V. Act was not put to challenge in the appeal, however, what was challenged in the appeal is the order for recovery warrant dated 06.08.2024. He further submits that the amount of Rs.3000/- to be paid to O.P. No.2 and Rs.2000/- to the two daughter cannot be said to be exorbitant, so as to interfere in the present proceedings. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. It is not in dispute that the O.P. No.2 was married with the son of the applicant, who expired. It is also not in dispute and rather admitted to the parties that the O.P. No.2 is already the mother of two daughters. The Court further finds from the both the orders, which are subject matter of challenge that the amount of Rs.3000/- so sought to be granted as interim maintenance Rs.2000/- to the two daughters is not so excessive to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. No such ground is made for interference. 6. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad