Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111092 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24295 of 2025 Applicant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Alias Sudhanshupriya Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rashmi Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Ms. Rashmi Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the ex-parte judgment and order dated 03-07-2024 passed in case no.4197 of 2015 under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act 2006, as well as consequential order dated 23-05- 2025 in execution case no. 1149 of 2025 under Section 31-D of Domestic Violence Act 2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court No-1 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad. 3. Learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present proceedings on the premise that an ex parte order came to be passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court No-1according relief to the opposite party no.2-wife. He submits that now a recovery warrants have also been issued and according to him the order in question is appealable under Section 29 of the D.V. Act. Submission is that it is for the applicant to question the said order while preferring an appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the said fact and position however according to her the order in question cannot be sustained as it contains incorrect facts particularly when the opposite party no.2 happens to be an educated lady but incorrectly it has been recited that she is illiterate. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. A perusal of the order dated 3.7.2024 passed by the court below would reveal that the same is an order according reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 of the D.V. Act. The said order is amenable to challenge under Section 29 of the D.V. Act. Once a statutory remedy itself provided it is for the applicant to avail the said remedy. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in case the applicant refers an appeal then there would be delay. 7. In the opinion of the Court once an appeal is being preferred along with the delay condonation application seeking justifiable grounds for condonation of delay then this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Looking into the fact that already recovery warrants have been issued. 8. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad