JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the wife of opposite party No.2, by way of this application, seeks to quash the order dated 27.12.2018 passed by learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in D.V. Misc. Case No.389 of 2017 in Annexure-3, by which her petitions dated 19.07.2018 and 06.12.2018 have been rejected with liberty to file execution proceeding for realization of arrear maintenance amount. 2. The background fact leading to filing of this case is that the petitioner, being person aggrieved, filed D.V. Misc. Case No. 389 of 2017 under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2005”) for grant of interim maintenance in term of monetary relief. The said petition was allowed on contest vide order dated 18.04.2018 and, as such, opposite party No.2-husband was directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner towards monetary relief including interim maintenance, which would be payable within 5th day of each succeeding month, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to realize the same in due course of law. So far as the prayer made by the petitioner in respect of separate residence under Section 19 of the Act is concerned, as the petitioner was residing in her paternal house, the court directed that the same would be considered at the time of final stage of hearing of the matter. So far as the prayer for interim protection under Section 18 of the Act is concerned, the court holding that every citizen has the right to live in peaceful and dignified manner and law of the land does not permit any person to interfere in the peaceful life of other individual and that as the evidence had not then resumed, directed the opposite party No. 2 not to interfere in the peaceful life of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and, further directed not to cause any type of violence upon the petitioner directly or indirectly till disposal of the case. 2.1. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.04.2018, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2018 under Section 29 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Cuttack, seeking enhancement of interim maintenance to Rs. 80,000/- per month, for residence under Section 18 of the Act and for restoration of her Streedhan property allegedly kept in the locker of Corporation Bank, Chadrashekharpur, Bhubaneswar. 80,000/- per month, for residence under Section 18 of the Act and for restoration of her Streedhan property allegedly kept in the locker of Corporation Bank, Chadrashekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2018 was filed by opposite party No. 2-husband for setting aside the order dated 18.04.2018. The learned District Judge, Cuttack heard both the appeals together in order to find out the correctness of the order passed by learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack and vide order dated 19.09.2018 observed that marriage between the parties was admitted, and that opposite party No. 2-husband has filed C.P. No. 153 of 2009 in the Family Court, Cuttack for divorce and the relationship between the parties has been strained and that the parties are living separately for about 9 years, and that the wife, being person aggrieved, alleged harassment, humiliation and physical assault by opposite party No. 2-husband and that D.V. Misc. Case No. 389 of 2017 is pending for adjudication before the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack. By so observing and considering the professional position of opposite party No. 2, granted Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the petitioner-wife towards separate residence and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. As such, Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2018 filed by wife-petitioner was allowed in part on contest and Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2018 filed by husband-opposite party No. 2 was dismissed. Accordingly, opposite party No. 2-husbad was directed to pay interim maintenance and separate residence totaling to Rs. 35,000/- from September, 2018 till disposal of D.V. Misc. Case and clear off dues, which might be outstanding against him, within a period of two months. 2.2. Since the order of the learned District Judge, Cuttack passed in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2018 was not complied with, the petitioner filed application before the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in D.V. Misc. Case No. 389 of 2017 seeking direction to opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs. 2,10,000/- and also to comply the order passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack with a further direction to the authority of opposite party No. 2 to remit the aforesaid amount and deposit before the court by deducting his monthly salary and, if the said order has not been complied with, direction may be given to the passport authority, Bhubaneswar to cancel his passport and inform the court regarding obedience of the order. The petitioner further sought for direction to issue DW/NBW against opposite party No. 2-husband and adjourn the date for evidence till the interim arrear maintenance has not been paid by opposite party No. 2. On the said application, the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack on 27.12.2018 passed order to the following effect.- "........It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack in his Judgment dated 19.09.2018in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2018 specifically directed this court to dispose of the DV case as expeditiously as possible. In spite of such direction imparted by the Hon'ble Appellate Court, the petitioner is not producing evidences for disposal of the case. In such constraint circumstances, I am to observe here that if such a course will be adopted then it will ultimately lead to an unending process which will be prejudicial to both the parties. In the result, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have opted to initiate execution proceeding for realization of the arrear maintenance amount independently from the main proceeding. Accordingly, in view of the above discussed circumstances the petitions dated 19.07.2018 and 06.12.2018 are rejected. The petitioner is at liberty to file execution proceeding for realization of the arrear maintenance amount. The petitioner/aggrieved persons are further directed to produce evidence on behalf of her case positively on the next date fixed." Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order passed by the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 3. Mr. R.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though order was passed by the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack granting interim maintenance, which was enhanced by learned District Judge, Cuttack under Section 23 of the Act, 2005, the same has not been paid and, as such, for non-payment of such dues, when step was taken by filing application before the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, the court insisted to file execution proceeding for realization of arrear maintenance amount, independent of the main proceeding, without following the procedure envisaged under Section 28 of the Act itself, thereby, the order dated 27.12.2018 so passed by the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in D.V. Misc. Case No. 389 of 2017 cannot sustain in the eye of law. 4. Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Addl. Case No. 389 of 2017 cannot sustain in the eye of law. 4. Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite party contended that the proceeding under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Act, 2005 and offence under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is contended that 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 of the Act. Thereby, the learned S.D.J.M. could have evolved its own procedure for implementation of the order for grant of interim maintenance under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act itself. 5. On perusal of records, it appears that this Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 issued notice to opposite party No. 2 by registered post with A.D. and directed the matter to be listed after six weeks, but said notice was returned with postal endorsement of "Singapore Post Ltd.". Consequentially, this Court passed order on 18.07.2019 to the following effect:- "Office note indicates that notice has returned unserved from opposite party No. 2 with an endorsement of "Singapore Post Ltd." In such background, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to take out notice to the said opposite party No. 2 by way of paper publication. Let notice be issued to opposite party No. 2 in his present correct address as per the provision under Order 5, Rule 20 (1-A), CPC by way of publication in any Odia Daily Newspaper with large circulation covering the local address of the opposite party No. 2. The draft for publication of notice shall be submitted before the Registry within two weeks and the Registry will approve and hand over the same to the petitioner immediately for paper publication. List this matter on 22.08.2019." When the matter was listed on 17.01.2020, this Court passed following orders:- "Since notice was issued to opposite party No. 2 as per the provision under Order-5 Rule 20 of CPC by way of paper publication and the extract of the notice has been placed on record, thereby notice as against the said opposite party is made sufficient. Mr. Mr. R.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that in spite of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2018 to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- to the petitioner, the same has not been paid commencing from September, 2018. As the said order was not complied with, he moved an application before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack, who compelled him to file execution proceeding for realization of arrear maintenance amount vide order dated 27.12.2018 in D.V. Misc. Case No. 389 of 2017, which is subject matter of dispute before this Court. It is contended that so far as the interim maintenance is concerned, the execution proceeding is not the remedy, rather the opposite party No. 2 has to comply the order in terms of the direction issued under Section 28(2) of the D.V. Act, but the same has not been complied with. Since notice as against opposite party No. 2 has been made sufficient by way of paper publication, to give another opportunity to him to appear and take steps in the case, call this matter after one week." Thereafter, vide order dated 07.02.2020, this Court passed following orders: "In view of order dated 17.01.2020, in spite of opportunity given to opposite party No. 2 since he is not appearing, this Court treat the notice against the said opposite party as sufficient. Call this matter next week." When the matter was listed on 12.02.2020, this Court passed following orders:- "In spite of notice being made sufficient against opposite party No. 2, none has entered appearance. To afford another opportunity to the opposite party, place this matter after two weeks." 6. In spite of consistent efforts being made with regard to service of notice on opposite party No. 2, including by way of paper publication under Order-5, Rule-20 CPC, and though this Court granted adequate opportunity to opposite party No. 2, he did not appear nor took any steps. Since the petitioner is deprived of getting her legitimate claim for interim maintenance, pursuant to order passed by learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, which was enhanced by learned District Judge, Cuttack, this Court thought it proper not to keep the matter pending and proceeded to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. Since the petitioner is deprived of getting her legitimate claim for interim maintenance, pursuant to order passed by learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, which was enhanced by learned District Judge, Cuttack, this Court thought it proper not to keep the matter pending and proceeded to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that opposite party No. 2 is deliberately not appearing in this case, though he has already filed a separate application before this Court. But nothing has been placed on record as to which case has been filed by opposite party No. 2. In any case, though efforts have been made by this Court for appearance of opposite party No. 2 even by substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20, CPC by making paper publication, he did not choose to appear. Therefore, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, this Court proceeded with the matter to dispose of the same as per the materials available on record in accordance with law, since the main case, i.e., D.V. Misc. Case No. 389 of 2017 is pending for adjudication before the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack. 7. For just and proper adjudication of the case, the provisions contained under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act, 2005 are extracted hereunder:- "23. Power to grant interim and ex parte orders.-(1) In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper. (2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent. XXX XXX XXX 28. Procedure.-(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). XXX XXX XXX 28. Procedure.-(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). (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." 8. Section 23 of the Act, 2005 empowers the Magistrate to pass interim order for grant of interim maintenance in any proceeding before him under the Act. Meaning thereby, if the Magistrate is satisfied, he may grant any ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person, under Sections 18 to 22 against opposite party No. 2. The statutory provision empowers the Magistrate to pass suitable orders under Section 12 of the Act. All orders that could be passed under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act, can be passed at the interim stage of any proceedings, which includes lump sum payment also under Section 23 of the Act, provided the Court is satisfied, what is just and proper. For disposal of an application by an ex parte order under sub-section (2) of Section 23, the provisions envisages that sub-section (1) of Section 28 shall not prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of such application. 9. In Krishna Murthy Nookula v. Y. Savitha, 2016 Crl. LJ 1970 (Karnataka), the Court held that the procedure prescribed by Core of Criminal Procedure is made applicable for enquiry in a proceeding under Section 23 and the other provisions of the Act, proceedings referred to under sub-section (2) of Section 23 for granting ex parte interim relief is excepted. 10. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act, 2005 provides for a procedure to be laid down by the court on its own for disposal of an application under Section 12. The procedure, which the learned court below can adopt, is limited to' the disposal of the application, but for execution of the order, a resort has to be had to the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure, which the learned court below can adopt, is limited to' the disposal of the application, but for execution of the order, a resort has to be had to the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to execution of the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have to be resorted to by the court below for giving force to the order of monetary relief. The Rajasthan High Court was of the same opinion, as has been expressed in Smt. Kanchan v. Vikramjeet Setiya, 2013 Crl. LJ 85 (Raj.). 11. Section 28 of the Act, 2005 provides that the court can lay-down its own procedure, when no provision is available for implementation of order passed under the 2005 Act. If the procedure is available under Criminal Procedure Code, that is necessarily to be followed. 12. In Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2018 Cri.L.J. 389 (All) (Lucknow Bench) (FB), it has been held that Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides that proceedings under the Act, 2005 relating to application and orders for reliefs and offence of breach of a protection order of interim protection order by the respondent shall be governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act envisages that the court may lay down its own procedure for disposal of applications for any relief or for grant of ex parte orders. The proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 23 which permits to pass interim order has to be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue of Section 28(1) of the Act, but all actions in a proceeding for grant of ex parte order would be by the procedure framed by the Court itself, if any or on the basis of the affidavit in such form as may be prescribed. Therefore, analyzing the provisions contained under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the Act, 2005 as discussed above, the proceeding under sub-section (1) of Section 23, which permits to pass interim order, has to be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue of Section 28(1) of the Act for its compliance. 13. Therefore, analyzing the provisions contained under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the Act, 2005 as discussed above, the proceeding under sub-section (1) of Section 23, which permits to pass interim order, has to be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue of Section 28(1) of the Act for its compliance. 13. So far as interim maintenance is concerned, Chapter-IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. deals with order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. In the present case, interim maintenance was granted in favour of the petitioner-wife, but the same was not implemented. Therefore, procedure as envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. read with Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Needless to say that the provisions contained under Section 128 Cr.P.C. is supplemented to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., which provides for enforcement of order of maintenance after being satisfied about the identity of parties and for non-payment of maintenance. Therefore, the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack could have applied its mind to the provisions applicable to the present case, as discussed above, instead of granting liberty to the petitioner to file execution proceeding for realization of order of maintenance amount. As such, the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack is not precluded to exercise power under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. read with 128 Cr.P.C., which is in consonance with the provisions contained under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act, 2005. 14. In such View of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in D.V. Misc. Case No. 389 of 2017 rejecting the petitions filed by the petitioner for realization of interim maintenance amount and directing the petitioner for realization of the amount by initiating execution proceeding, cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack to reconsider the same afresh and pass appropriate order in consonance with the provisions of law, as discussed above. 15. Accordingly, the CRLMP is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.