Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130937 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11555 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Even in the revised call, none appeared for the private opposite party no.2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed to quash the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kannauj in Criminal Misc. Case No.111/12 of 2023 (Chandan Vs. Smt. Babita @ anshu), arising out of an application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C., whereby recovery warrant as well as arrest warrant has been issued against the applicant to recover the arrears of cost which has been imposed to allow the restoration/recall application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned orders dated 22.1.2024 and subsequent order dated 01.02.2025 has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances and position of law as 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 order 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. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed to enforce the recovery of arrears of maintenance by issuing non- bailable warrant against the applicant or attachment without following the procedure as provided in the Civil Procedure Code. The matter is related to settled position of law. There is no other point for consideration except issuing recovery warrant as well as non-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. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application is allowed and the order dated 01.02.2025 is hereby quashed. 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 the case of Rajnesh (supra). After some argument, learned counsel for the applicant wants time to deposit the remaining cost in the Court. The applicant is granted two weeks time from today to deposit the remaining cost. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Kpy Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad