HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13178 of 2022 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. None appears on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, even in the revised call. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Mrityunjay Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of recovery warrant order dated 16.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court First, Maharajganj, in Case No. 817 of 2019 (Roshan Fatma Vs. Abdul Aziz), under Section 128 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife was allowed by the concerned court directing the applicant to pay Rs. 3,500/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 and her two minor children. With the passage of time, when no amount was paid by the applicant the wife moved an application seeking recovery of due arrears amount, wherein the impugned order has been passed issuing recovery warrant against the applicant, which is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the above prayer and stated that the monthly maintenance was granted to the wife in the year 2016. It appears that on non payment of monthly maintenance amount non bailable warrant has been issued against him, which is just, legal and proper, therefore, applicant does not deserve any indulgence. 6. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties as well as after perusing the record, this Court finds that Rs. 3,500/- was granted to the wife and her two minor children. When no any amount was paid by the applicant to the deserted wife, she was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hardev Prajapati, Javed Alam, Nasim Uddin Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atmaram Nadiwal, Dinesh Kumar Yadav, G.A., Monu Upadhyay, Muhammad Azam Abdul Aziz .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) having no option but to file execution application for recovery of due arrears of amount of maintenance as awarded, wherein the court concerned passed the impugned recovery warrant against the applicant. Further, learned counsel fails to show any illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the impugned order. 7. In view of above, the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. May 5, 2026 Mustaqeem. A482 No. 13178 of 2022 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad