HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36601 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing order dated 09.07.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 3603 of 2016 (Nazia Bano Vs. Mohd. Shariq Iqbal) under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Police Station Colonelganj District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar. 3. The case of the applicant is that the proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act came to be instituted by O.P. No.2 and 3 against the applicant and other family members in which an exparte order came to be passed on 07.11.2019 in Complaint Case No.3603 of 2016, Smt. Nazia Bano vs. Mohd. Sharique Iqbal under Section 23 of the D.V. Act whereby maintenance was directed to be granted to the O.P. No.2 and 3 to the tune of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively. Since the applicant claims himself to be cancer patient, thus an application came to be preferred by the applicant under Section 25(2) of the D.V. Act on 20.07.2023 with a ground that the recovery proceedings which have been sought to be initiated be withdrawn, particularly the applicant is agreeable to give maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to O.P. No.3. On the same, an order came to be passed for withdrawing of recovery. However, thereafter, on 25.04.2025, another application for issuance of the recovery certificate came to be preferred on the premise that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lal Mani Singh, Raghuvir Sharan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Shariq Iqbal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the total amount due and payable to the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 is Rs.2,66,500/-. The said application came to be objected by the applicant on 19.06.2025 coming up with the stand in para-3 that earlier recovery certificate was withdrawn then there is no ground to again issue recovery certificate. The court below on 09.07.2025 proceeded to reject the said application. 4. Questioning the same, the present application has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the main order against which recovery proceedings have been initiated is the order dated 07.11.2019 passed under section 23 of the D.V. Act and the applicant is in the process of filing an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act taking the grounds for condonation of delay also. However, he submits that an interim protection be accorded to the applicant and the applicant is agreeable to make the payment with respect to the O.P. No.3, as directed to be Rs.2000/- per month in the order dated 07.11.2019. 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once the order dated 07.11.2019 has not been challenged and the earlier recovery proceeding was dropped only on the premise that the applicant was suffering from ailment and he was agreeable to pay Rs.20,000/- to the O.P. N.3, but the same would not forestall issuance of fresh recovery, particularly when interim maintenance stands accumulated on month-to-month basis. He submits that it is for the applicant to challenge the same. 7. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusing the record, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. 8. Apparently, on 07.11.2019, an order came to be passed under Section 23 of the D.V. Act, requiring the applicant to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- to O.P. No.2 and Rs.2000/- to O.P. No.3. As a matter of fact, recovery proceedings stood initiated and on 20.07.2023 an order came to be passed for withdrawing of the recovery proceeding on the premise that the applicant had shown his inability to deposit the said amount and he on his own request Rs.20,000/- was directed to be deposited. Since the interim maintenance is to be paid every month, thus in the opinion of the Court, there is no error in issuance of the recovery certificate and passing of the order dated 09.07.2025, however, on a point query raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether the order dated 07.11.2019 passed under NA528 No. 36601 of 2025 2 Section 23 of the D.V. Act has been subject matter of challenge, the answer is in negative. Since the applicant has come up with the stand that the applicant shall be filing an appeal, thus it is provided that in case the applicant files an appeal, questioning the order dated 07.11.2019 along with the delay condonation application seeking condonation of delay and a stay application, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered sympathetically and decided strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. September 22, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 36601 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad