HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8684 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Nitika, appearing in person for opposite party no. 2. 2. The revisionist has approached this Court by means of the present revision challenging the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 531 of 2024 (Smt. Nikita v. Arjun Kumar) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary and has been passed in an illegal and erroneous manner. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without adopting a judicious approach. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that opposite party no. 2 had filed a petition seeking maintenance, which was allowed ex parte. The revisionist had no knowledge of the said proceedings and, therefore, had no opportunity to defend himself. Although the said order has attained finality, opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “B.N.S.S.”) for realization of the arrears of maintenance. By order dated 16.08.2024, the Trial Court entertained the said application and issued notice to the revisionist. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 10.01.2025, the Trial Court issued a recovery warrant against the revisionist. It is further submitted that the revisionist is Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Gaurav Tiwari, Ramesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arjun Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) ready and willing to deposit 50% of the amount sought to be recovered, so as to demonstrate his bona fides. The remaining amount may also be permitted to be realized from him in installments. In view of the above, it is submitted that the recovery warrant issued against the revisionist is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party no. 2, appearing in person, vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. The attention of the Court was drawn to the order dated 19.08.2026 passed by this Court. By the said order, this Court had noticed that, as per the compliance affidavit filed by the Sub-Registrar, Bareilly, in compliance with the earlier order of this Court dated 13.08.2026, the revisionist had disposed of certain properties through registered deeds, including two gift deeds and three sale deeds. This Court had further observed that execution of the aforesaid deeds appeared to have been made with a view to frustrating the recovery of the maintenance amount. It is, therefore, contended that the conduct of the revisionist demonstrates that he is acting mala fide in the matter and that the oral assertion of bona fides made before this Court cannot be accepted in view of his subsequent conduct. 5. When confronted with the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the revisionist could not satisfactorily overcome the same. 6. Having heard the rival submissions and having considered the conduct of the revisionist, particularly the execution of two gift deeds and three sale deeds in favour of third parties, this Court finds substance in the apprehension expressed by opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist is attempting to frustrate the recovery of the maintenance amount. In these circumstances, merely on the basis of an oral statement expressing willingness to deposit 50% of the amount, no equitable relief can be granted to the revisionist. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.01.2025, whereby the Trial Court has issued a recovery warrant against the revisionist. So far as the order dated 16.08.2024 is concerned, the same merely directs issuance of notice to the revisionist in the proceedings. It is trite law that an order issuing notice/summoning a person, not being a final order, ordinarily cannot be challenged by way of revision. CRLR No. 8684 of 2025 2 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 9, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 8684 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad