HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46206 of 2025 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the Non-bailable warrant dated 25.08.2025 as well as recovery warrant dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Misc. Case No. 218 of 2024 (Neelam Vs. Raju Singh), under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri, pending in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the applicant with opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 26.06.2012 according to Hindu rites. In the marriage no dowry was ever demanded by the applicant or his family members. The allegations of cruelty and demand of additional dowry are baseless and concocted. The applicant is a labourer and earning hardly only Rs. 10,000/- per month. The applicant has always been willing to keep opposite party no. 2 with him but she has refused to live with the applicant without any justified reason. After short period of peaceful matrimony, opposite party no. 2 started quarreling with the applicant and later she went to her parental home, from where she initiated a false and fabricated proceedings against the applicant. It is further submitted that the impugned orders dated 25.08.2025 as well as recovery warrant dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri issuing recovery warrant and non-bailable warrant are wholly illegal and arbitrary and have been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it has been directed that the enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of D.V. Act Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Roopesh Srivastava Raju Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) and Section 128 of Cr. P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the C.P.C., more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order XXI of C.P.C. 4. It is further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed to enforce the recovery of arrears of maintenance by issuing recovery warrant and non-bailable warrant against the applicant without following the procedure as provided in the law. 5. In the present case the opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court for getting the execution of the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri on an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The same was registered as Case No. 218 of 2024. The learned Family Court issued recovery warrant as well as non bailable warrant against the applicant for recovery of maintenance amount. The learned family court has not followed the principles as prescribed under Section 421 Cr.P.C. A recovery warrant and non-bailable warrant cannot be issued by the trial court simultaneously for recovery of the maintenance award. Hence, the matter is related to above mentioned settled position of law. There is no other point for consideration except issuing recovery warrant and non bailable warrant simultaneously to recover the arrears of maintenance, due to this reason, the opportunity to call the counter affidavit from the opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application is allowed and accordingly, the Non-bailable warrant dated 25.08.2025 and recovery warrant dated 05.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri are quashed. 7. It is made clear that the court concerned may proceed to enforce or recover the arrears of maintenance amount as per settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). February 4, 2026 Rmk. NA528 No. 46206 of 2025 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad