Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132029 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11364 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 1. Sri Aman Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Maurya, learned brief holder for the State are present. 2. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed to quash the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Court No. 3, Bareilly, in Execution (Maintenance) Case No. 2168 of 2024 (Raj Kumari vs. Rahul Kumar), arising out of an application under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., whereby Family Court issued recovery warrant against the applicant and sent to jail for a period of 30 days, as well as order dated 2.11.2023 passed in Restoration Application No. 992 of 2021 (Rahul vs. Smt. Raj Kumari), whereby Family Court dismissed the case on non payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- in pursuance of earlier order dated 3.8.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the facts, circumstances and settled position of law. It is further submitted that order dated 3.8.2023 whereby an application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. There is no time limit fixed to pay the cost to opposite party no. 2. 4. The matter is related to settled position of law. There is no other point for consideration except issuing recovery warrant as well as non- 1 of 2 bailable warrants 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. 5. It is further submitted that vide order dated 19.3.2025, Family Court issued recovery warrant against the applicant and thereafter sent him jail which is against 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 the D.V. Act; 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. 6. It is further submitted that the impugned orders dated 19.3.2025 has been passed to enforce the recovery of arrears of maintenance by issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant without following the procedure as provided in the Civil Procedure Code. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application is allowed and the orders dated 19.3.2025 and 2.11.2023 are hereby quashed. 8. However, it is directed to applicant to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 within two weeks from today. 9. It is made clear that the court concerned shall proceed to enforce or recover the arrears of maintenance amount as money decree of a civil court as per provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, as law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra). Order Date :- 5.8.2025/A.P. Pandey 2 of 2 Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad