HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5211 of 2024 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Shri Ram Sewak, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the recovery warrant dated 29.04.2024 passed in Execution Case No. 108 of 2023, (Shiv Kumari Vs. Badrinath) and its consequential proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to matrimonial dispute, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the private respondent, which was registered as Case No. 405 of 2013 before Principal Judge, Family Court and later on, the same was transferred to Additional Principal Judge, Family Court. Thereafter, written statement was filed by the applicant, however, during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, issue was resolved in between the parties outside the Court by way of agreement dated 12.09.2017, according to which, Rs.3 lac, in cash, was given by the applicant to respondent no. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that by way of said agreement, it was also settled in between the parties that they will not pursue the case against each other, but even then, respondent no. 2 was continuously pursuing Case No. 405 of 2013 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Sewak Badrinath @ Badri Prasad Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, order dated 20.05.2022 was passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court directing the applicant to pay Rs.5000/- on 10th of every month to the private respondent as well as her minor son from the date of application dated 23.11.2023. It is also submitted that the aforesaid order was challenged in Criminal Revision (D) No. 128 of 2024, but the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2024. In the meantime, application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was filed bearing Misc. Case No. 34 of 204, which was also rejected on 06.03.2024 by the trial court. It is lastly submitted that recovery warrant was issued by the trial court in mechanical manner and, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for private respondent, while opposing the prayer of the applicant, submits that after filing of the written submissions, the applicant started avoiding proceeding of maintenance, due to which, respondent no. 2 is unable to rear her son. It is further submitted that during the pendency of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the applicant solemnized second marriage with one Rita d/o Rajendra Yadav, which fact has also been observed by the trial court in its order dated 20.05.2022, which fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 also informs that the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2022 was challenged by the applicant before this Court in Crl. Revision (D) No. 128 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2024 on the ground of inordinate delay. Submission of the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is that once the maintenance order has been upheld, the consequential proceedings cannot be challenged. Reliance in support of his argument has been placed by the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Kumar @ Rina Devi @ Reena Vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato & Anr., (2025) 3 SCC 33. It is, thus, submitted that the present application is liable A482 No. 5211 of 2024 2 to be dismissed. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and going through the contents of the application, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that recovery warrant was issued in terms of judgment and order dated 20.05.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court in Case No. 405 of 2013 (Shiva Kumari Vs. Badrinath @ Badri Pasad Yaday), which was challenged in Crl. Revision (D) No. 128 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2024. Admittedly, consequential proceedings cannot be challenged. 7. In view of above, the application is misconceived and stands dismissed. December 1, 2025 VKS A482 No. 5211 of 2024 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench