Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86182 . Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16238 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred as 'BNSS') has been preferred against the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in case no. 1694 of 2024, under Section 144(3) BNSS, as well as against the order dated 05.03.2021 passed in case no. 931 of 2021, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that the opposite party No. 2 is wife of applicant and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are their minor children. The opposite party No. 2 has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was decided by ex-parte order dated 05.03.2021. After that opposite party No. 2 has initiated proceedings under Section 125(3)Cr.P.C. and that case was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 16.05.2024 and she has started residing with applicant. Later the opposite party No. 2 has again initiated proceedings under Section 144(3) BNSS for recovery of maintenance, wherein by impugned order dated 20.09.2024 recovery notice has been issued to the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that once an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed, second application under Section 144(3) BNSS is not maintainable. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. So far the impugned order dated 05.03.2021 is concerned, by that order maintenance has been granted to the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 by the Family court. In view of provisions of Section - 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 and the law laid down in case of Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:2129445, Ashu Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023:AHC:165660 and Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497, it is clear that an order of maintenance or interim maintenance passed by Family court is not an interlocutory order and that against such orders, aggrieved person has remedy of revision. It was held that against such order, application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS is not maintainable. In view of aforesaid, this application under Section - 528 BNSS against order dated 05.03.2021 is not maintainable. 7. So far impugned order dated 20.09.2024 is concerned, it appears that opposite party No. 2 has filed the application under Section 144(3) BNSS on 13.08.2024 and in those proceedings recovery notice was issued to the applicant vide impugned order dated 20.09.2024. The contention of learned counsel that once an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed, second application under Section 144(3) BNSS is not maintainable, is not acceptable. There is nothing to indicate that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference in the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 528 BNSS. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of aforesaid, the instant application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad