Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124440 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (SN.14) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14606 of 2025 Applicant :- Shariq Mustafa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh,Parijat Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar,Ayub Khan,G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 and Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties no. 1 and 2. 2. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2 Meerut in Execution Case No. 267 of 2023 (Smt. Shaista Vs. Mustafa) under section 125(3) Cr.P.C. in so far as it relate to seizure and recovery of amount of maintenance from the properties owned by the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no. 3 is the wife of father of the applicant herein and the opposite party no. 4 is the step sister of the applicant. There was a matrimonial dispute between the father of the applicant and the opposite party no. 3 and in connection with the same an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 3 which was allowed vide order dated 29.5.2023 whereby the opposite party no. 3 was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month and opposite party no. 4 was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. Thus a total sum of Rs.55,000/- was to be paid to the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 by the father of the applicant herein from the date of application dated 20.12.2019. The said application was filed by the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 in which recovery warrant was issued and subsequent thereto vide order dated 28.11.2024 attachment of various properties owned by the father of the applicant has been ordered. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that father of the applicant has already gifted some of the properties to the applicant and some other properties are still owned by him. Therefore, he submits that that the attachment of the properties, which were already gifted to the applicant by his father, cannot be made and specifically when his father is having other properties against which the order of attachment can be enforced. 4.Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 submits that all the transaction which are alleged to have been made by the father of the applicant are either during the pendency of Section 125 Cr.P.C. application or subsequent thereto. Therefore, they were deliberately done by the father of the applicant to avoid the payment of maintenance and to obstruct the execution of the order passed against the father of the applicant herein. He further submits that the father of the applicant herein has not denied that the aforesaid two houses which have been attached and the land which is owned by the father of the applicant are in his name. Therefore, it appears that the aforesaid gift deed has been fraudulently made in favour of the applicant with deliberate attempt to avoid the maintenance to the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 by the father of the applicant. 5. In the considered opinion of this court there is no apparent error or illegality in the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 whereby the attachment of specific houses have been made by the trial court. 6. In view of the above, the instant applicant lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 o.k. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad