HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35017 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to inadvertence the prayer has been wrongly mentioned. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the same during the course of hearing. Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S has been filed to quash the order dated 18.04.2025 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Bhadohi in Execution Case No. 440 of 2023 arising out of an application under Section 128 of Cr.P.C. whereby the recovery warrant as well as arrest warrant has been issued to recover the arrears of maintenance amount against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order 18.04.2025 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 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. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed to enforce the recovery of arrears of maintenance by issuing recovery warrant as well Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kamlesh Sonkar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) as arrest warrant against the applicant 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 arrest warrant 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 18.04.2025 is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the court concerned may 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 per law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra). September 12, 2025 Ishan NA528 No. 35017 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad