HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35195 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. During course of hearing learned counsel for the applicant has corrected the prayer clause of this application. Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. The present application u/s 528 of BNSS of 2023 has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur in Execution (Maintenance) Case No. 825 of 2025 (Smt. Rinki Tiwari and others vs. Vinay Kumar Tiwari), arising out of an application under Section 147 of BNSS (128 of Cr.P.C.), whereby recovery warrant has been issued against the applicant to recover the arrears of maintenance. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 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 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinay Kumar Tiwari .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the recovery of arrears of maintenance by issuing recovery 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 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 above facts and circumstances, the application is allowed and the order dated 02.09.2025 is 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 law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). September 15, 2025 MAA/- NA528 No. 35195 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad