Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75080 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16093 of 2025 Applicant :- Rohit Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Principal Secretary Home, Govt Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shyam Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed in application bearing paper no. 17 kha/1 dated 31.01.2025 passed by Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.18, Meerut filed in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2024 (Rohit Jain and others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) against the order dated 21.03.2024 passed in complaint case no. 10137 of 2020 (Smt. Sweta Jain Vs. Rohit Kumar Jain), under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the applicant and an order came to be passed under Section 12 of the DV Act on 21.03.2024 by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Meerut according relief. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Meerut which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2024. A stay application was also preferred. In the meantime proceedings under Section 31 was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 so the applicant preferred an application on 31.01.2025 that during the pendency of the appeal, the recovery warrant be stayed. The said application came to be rejected by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2024 on 07.02.2025. 4. Assailing the said order, the applicant has filed the present application. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that under Section 29 of the DV Act, 2005, an appeal lies against the order passed under Chapter IV of the Act and once, an appeal is being preferred along with the stay application then the court below ought to have considered the same this way or that way particularly when a separate application was preferred on 31.01.2025 for staying of the execution of warrants. Submission is that the applicant had an iron cast case for stay. 6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that mere pendency of an appeal would not construe to be a stay and further on mere asking, stay of an order passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act cannot be granted as there has been to be reasons for the same and the court below has accorded reasons that post passing of the order dated 21.03.2024 under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act, no compensation so awarded has been extended to the opposite party no. 2. 7. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 8. Apparently, on 21.03.2024, an order came to be passed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 granting relief under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act against which a criminal appeal has been preferred by the applicant under Section 29 of the Act on 12.04.2024. During the pendency of the appeal, since no interim order was granted, proceedings for warrant execution of the order was preferred in which warrants were issued so on 31.01.2025, an application came to be preferred by the applicant for staying the recovery warrants which has been rejected on 07.02.2025. A birds eye view to the order passed by the court below would reveal that cogent reasons have been accorded that the benefits which flow from the order of the trial court under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act has not been extended by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2. Further the court below has even fixed a date for hearing, requesting the parties to appear and argue on 21.02.2025. 9. In the opinion of the Court, the reasons so accorded in the order impugned cannot be said to be illegal arbitrary or perfunctory. 10. Accordingly, no ground is made out for interference, the present application is consigned to record. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad