Disposed¶24

Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2026NA528/8040/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Deepak Verma, J.; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 8040 of 2026; quashing of exparte maintenance order dated 25.03.2025; Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act 2005, Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23; Complaint Case No.26 of 2019, Gautam Buddh Nagar; inherent jurisdiction restraint; Section 29 D.V. Act appeal remedy; Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC Online 1158; application disposed of; appeal to be decided within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; applicants directed to file an appeal before the trial court in accordance with law, to be decided within four weeks. ¶24

Amit Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for quashing refused; applicants directed to file an appeal before the trial court in accordance with law, to be decided within four weeks.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the exparte order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C.-2, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 under the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005 ought to be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶10

Court's answer

The exparte maintenance order dated 25.03.2025 was passed after hearing opposite party no.2, while the applicants did not appear before the trial court; the exparte order for maintenance is just and proper, and the applicants' remedy is an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

No interference is warranted; the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶20

Key takeaways

The applicants are directed to file an appeal before the trial court in accordance with law, and the appeal shall be decided by the trial court considering all facts and circumstances within a period of four weeks.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 528 BNSS to quash an exparte order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C.-2, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 (Smt. Pinki @ Megha Vs. Amit Kumar and others) under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005. The Court quoted Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC Online 1158, paras 35-36 (High Court to be slow and circumspect in quashing DV Act proceedings in inherent jurisdiction; appeal lies under Section 29). Holding that the exparte maintenance order was passed after hearing opposite party no.2 and that the applicants did not appear before the trial court, the Court found the order just and proper, refused the prayer for quashing, and disposed of the application with a direction to the applicants to file an appeal before the trial court, to be decided within four weeks.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8040 of 2026

¶3

Amit Kumar And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Sanjay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 73

¶7

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make correction in the array of parties during the course of the day,

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the exparte order dated 25.03.2025 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C.-2, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Complaint Case No.26 of 2019 (Smt. Pinki @ Megha Vs. Amit Kumar and others), under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005, Police Station Section 58 NOIDA, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is the husband of the opposite party no.2 and marriage was solemnized in the year 2015 but after some matrimonial dispute, opposite party no.2 lodged the present proceedings against the applicants and the learned Magistrate has issued notice but notice was not served upon applicants, therefore, applicants could not appear before the trial court. The learned trial court proceeded exparte against the applicants by order dated 25.03.2025 with observation that the applicants paid Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance. He further submits that the present order was passed exparte without hearing the applicants.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for

¶13

NA528 No. 8040 of 2026

¶14

¶15

the applicants.

¶16

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal reported in 2025 SCC Online 1158. The relevant paragraphs nos. 35 and 36 are quoted herein below:-

¶17

" 35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12 (1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12 (1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated.

¶18

36. We must also note here that against an order passed by a learned Magistrate, there is an appeal provided under Section 29 to the Court of Session. In contrast, generally, there is no remedy of appeal available against an order taking cognisance of an offence or an order issuing process. This is another reason why the High Court should exercise caution when exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005."

¶19

Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants, the order has passed after hearing opposite party no.2, applicants did not appear before the trial court and court has passed exparte order for maintenance, which is just and proper. The applicant has remedy under Section 29 of the D.V. Act for filing appeal.

¶20

No interference is warranted. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is hereby refused.

¶21

NA528 No. 8040 of 2026

¶22

¶23

However, applicants are directed to file an appeal before the trial court, in accordance with law. The appeal of the applicants shall be decided by the trial court considering all the facts and circumstances, within a period of four weeks.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is disposed of.

¶25

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶26

March 19, 2026

¶27

Mini

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep Singh Thakur and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Patel vs State of Up and Another

Kamran and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgesh Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Vrs Foods Limited vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Shankar Giri vs State of U.P. and Another