1. Heard learned Counsel Shri Sudhir Moharir for the petitioner and learned Counsel Shri R.R. Vyas for the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The petitioner has moved this Court by invoking powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Application No.890/2012 (Sushma vs. Sachin). The order, which is questioned before this Court, reads as under:-

“Perused the application and stay.

Heard learned Advocate for both sides.

Applicant relied on 2013 All M.R.(Cri.) 2572. Learned Advocate for N.A. has opposed that Magistrate has no powers. N.A. has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance. Learned Advocate has also confessed that N.A. has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance order which is passed on Exhibit 13.

Provision under Section 28(2) is very clear when N.A. has not paid amount and not complied the order, she cannot be kept high and dray. Magistrate is empowered under Section 28(2) to issue

N.B.W. Citation filed by applicant is very much applicable in the case in hand. Hence application is allowed. Issue N.B.W. against non-applicant.”

4. The petitioner is husband of the respondent. The respondent has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Magistrate. An interim order has been passed granting monetary relief. It appears that the petitioner has not paid the amount to the respondent as per the interim order. A non-bailable warrant has been issued for non-payment of amount of interim maintenance to the respondent by the petitioner. It appears from the order of the learned Magistrate that the learned Magistrate was of the view that he could formulate his own procedure under Section 28(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It appears that the Magistrate was also of the view that he can lay down his own procedure for recovery of the amount of interim maintenance. Subsection (2) of Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 reads as under:-

“28(2). Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the said Act reads as under:-

“28(1). Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)”

5. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that basically the learned Magistrate has to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of maintenance either final or interim. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be pressed into service when there is no provision available for implementing a particular order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. If the procedure is available in Code of Criminal Procedure, that is necessarily to be followed.

6. In my considered opinion, the procedure laid down under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting compliance of the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 125(1) of the Code will have to be followed for executing the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 20 (Monetary Reliefs) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The reliefs available under Section 125(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are analogous to the reliefs available under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The procedure for getting compliance of the order passed under Section 125 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available un