Dr. Abdul Hannan Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko. ...
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32836
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an order for interim maintenance has been passed and not challenged by the applicant, the applicant cannot subsequently seek to quash the proceedings for recovery of that maintenance on the ground that it was passed without payment, and the recovery proceedings based on that order remain valid and without infirmity. Where no illegality is pointed out in the proceedings and the applicant refuses to deposit any amount or engage in mediation, an application to quash such proceedings lacks merit and should be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed with the following main prayer:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, Court No.8, of the case titled as, "Smt. Zeenat Parveen and others vs. Dr. Abdul Hannan and others, bearing Complaint Case No. 1232 of 2024, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Indiranagar, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Lucknow, Court No.8 and the order dated 27.03.2026 along with the entire consequential proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid order, be quashed, which is annexed as Annexure No.1."
3. It has been submitted by counsel for the applicant that recovery proceeding has been initiated against the application without application of mind. He has submitted that the applicant wants mediation that is why the present application has been filed. He has not taken any other legal grounds.
4. Counsel for the State has submitted that the order for interim maintenance was passed on 4.12.2025 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the applicant. He has not challenged the said order, rather the recovery proceeding has been initiated and he has challenged the said proceeding, thus, once the order passed by the court below has not been passed the consequences would be followed and he has to comply the order unless it is stayed or set aside.
5. He has also submitted that the order has been passed that he has to pay the maintenance from the date of presenting the application, which was presented on 12.6.2024 but he has not paid single penny.
6. On asking whether the applicant can deposit some amount so that mediation can be facilitated but he has submitted that his client is not ready to pay any sum of amount. There is also no illegality pointed out by him, therefore the proceedings cannot be quashed and the application is devoid of merit.
7. It is also noted that interim maintenance awarded by such order has been finalized and the same has not been challenged by the applicant. Once the same is not challenged, the consequence has been followed and recovery proceeding has been initiated and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the court below.
8. Accordingly, the instant application is hereby dismissed.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
May 6, 2026
Muk
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free