Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24112 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1250 of 2025 Applicant :- Mrs. Heera Siddiqui @ Humaira Opposite Party :- Mr. Arshad Alam Counsel for Applicant :- Skand Bajpai Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Court No.28, Lucknow in Case No. 2694 of 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that proceeding under Section 12 of D.V. Act was initiated by the applicant against the respondent due to her victimization and an application u/s 23 of D.V. Act was decided on 05.08.2024 by granting interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/-, and the case was ordered to be listed for evidence. He further submits that the respondent is not cooperating in the proceeding as he is residing in Odisha. He next submits that recovery warrant was issued, but the same is not being executed, and the respondent is also committing contempt of the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Court No.28, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 2694 of 2023, therefore, indulgence of this Court is required for prosecuting the respondent under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund Vs. Dharmesh S. Jain and Anr. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 662, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that in case there is a statutory provision of execution of the award, even then, the contempt proceeding can be initiated. 4. In the present case, it is admitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent had appeared at the initial stage and had filed application for recall of the order in question, and the same was dismissed, but thereafter, he started avoiding to join the proceedings. Moreover, no application for issuance of non bailable warrant is moved before the trial Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the facts of the case are entirely different from the judgement relied by learned counsel for the applicant. The appearance of the respondent- accused is to be procured by the Presiding Officer in the present case by issuing non bailable warrant, but the same has not been requested. Therefore, the present contempt application being misconceived stands dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Arpan Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench