HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12213 of 2026 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present petition is filed with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1, Bareilly, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2694 of 2025 (Km. Kajal v. Ved Prakash) under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly and quash the further proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 2694 of 2025 (Km. Kajal v. Ved Prakash) under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, in the interest of justice. And/or any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is father and order of maintenance for Rs.6000/- was passed on 27.8.2025. In the aforesaid order Rs.6000/- per month was directed to be paid to opposite party/daughter from 24.5.2023. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the order dated 27.8.2025 is already under challenge before this Court in Criminal Revision Defective No.1495 of 2026. It is further submitted that recovery has been initiated against petitioner by means of impugned order. Petitioner is government servant and from the salary of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Dwivedi, Gunjan Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ved Prakash .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) petitioner, the amount was directed to be deducted. 3-A. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 21.1.2010, which is at page 40 of the paper book, where the divorce suit was settled between petitioner/husband and the wife and one time payment of Rs.10,000/- was paid towards maintenance of daughter in the year 2010. In view of settlement entered into between petitioner/husband and wife, opposite party no.2/daughter has no right to claim maintenance. 4. It is to be seen that the original order dated 27.8.2025 by which Rs.6000/- towards maintenance was fixed by the Court is not subject matter of challenge before this Court. The order dated 8.7.2026 is subsequent order initiating recovery. Learned counsel for petitioner has not argued that in the previous litigation the order dated 27.8.2025 has been stayed by this Court. The execution proceedings are in respect of order dated 27.8.2025. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that compromise for meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance of minor child cannot amount to refusal of maintenance if subsequently child approaches the court for maintenance. The petitioner being father is obliged under law to maintain her daughter. The amount of Rs.10,000/- (lumsum) in 2010 as maintenance to daughter, who was not party to settlement is highly unjust. 5. In view of aforesaid, the petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 8, 2026 D. Tamang A227 No. 12213 of 2026 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad