Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33873 Court No. - 48 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6720 of 2025 Applicant :- Shakeel Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Anurag Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of order dated 22.11.2024 and 16.04.2024 in Case No. 1120 of 2017 (Km. Shava vs. Shakeel Ahmad) under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. pending in the court of Family Court, Sambhal at Channdausi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant by way of the instant application seeks quashing of the orders dated 22.11.2024 and 16.04.2024 passed by the Family Court and submits that the orders passed by the Family Court are improper, unjust and arbitrary and has been passed without application of judicial mind and therefore, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA for the State-opposite party at the very outset resisted the relief on the ground that the facts narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the instant application are totally misconceived, hence, no interference is required by this Court. 5. However, applicant through this application seeking quashing of the orders dated 22.11.2024 and 16.04.2024 passed by the Family Court, which were outcome of an application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no. 2 for maintenance, which was decided vide order dated 16.07.2010 by the family court, whereby maintenance of Rs. 3500/- was awarded in favour of opposite party no. 2. As the same was not being complied by the applicant, opposite party no. 2 filed application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of maintenance amount on 12.04.2024. He further submits that while deciding the applicant under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., family court had issued recovery warrants which was objected by the applicant on the ground that opposite party no. 2 is major aged about 25 years, hence, not entitled to get maintenance. Finally on 16.04.2024 all the claims of applicant was rejected and he was sent to custody upto 02.05.2024 with the observation that after paying the maintenance amount, applicant can seek release from the custody. He further submits that applicant have no intention to pay the maintenance amount, sought release from the custody through her sister, which was also rejected by the Family Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 with the observation that applicant had not paid any amount of maintenance to her daughter and also have no intention to pay the same. He further submits that the Court below has rightly put the applicant into judicial custody for non compliance of the order of maintenance, which requires no interference by this Court as well as in on going proceedings. 6. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record, it appears that to secure the compliance of its earlier order of maintenance dated 16.07.2010, family court on an application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C. acted upon and rejected the plea taken by the applicant that opposite party no. 2 is major and not entitled for the maintenance, vide order dated 16.04.2024 sent the applicant into custody. Which was resisted by the applicant and an applicant for release of applicant was filed by his sister, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 22.11.2024. 7. Applicant has come up before this Court only to challenge the order dated 22.11.2024 and 16.04.2024 which was passed by the Family Court and has not made even a single whisper in his contention with regard to payment of maintenance amount to the opposite party no. 2, his daughter, which is considerably meagre amount for the said purpose, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders. 8. Moreover, it is not open while exercising the jurisdiction under section 528 BNSS to enter into the factual intricacies and in the detailed appreciation of the evidence. 9. In view of aforesaid, I find that filing of this application is nothing but pure abuse of process of law and there is no merit in this application. 10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 528 BNSS cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad