HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36966 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the applicant has corrected the prayer clause of this application. Ms. Preete Chaudhary, 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 orders dated 21.07.2025 and 20.08.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in Execution Case No. 1152 of 2024, arising out of an application under Section 147 of B.N.S.S. (128 Cr.P.C.), whereby recovery warrant as well as arrest 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Preete Chaudhary, Vijeta Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shaheb .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed to enforce the recovery of arrears of maintenance by issuing recovery warrant and 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 above facts and circumstances, the application is allowed and the orders dated 21.07.2025 and 20.08.2025 are 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 24, 2025 MAA/- NA528 No. 36966 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad