HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36553 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the prayer clause during the course of hearing. Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.N. Upadhyay, learned brief holder 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 29.7.2022 as well as order dated 14.7.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Execution Case No. 35 of 2022, arising out of an application under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. whereby recovery warrant as well as Non Bailable warrant has been issued to recover the arrears of maintenance amount against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders dated 29.7.2022 and 14.7.2025 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 orders have been passed to enforce the recovery of arrears of maintenance by issuing recovery warrant as well Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kasim Ali .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) as Non Bailable 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 Non Bailable 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 orders dated 29.7.2022 and 14.7.2025 are, 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 the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra). September 22, 2025 T. Sinha NA528 No. 36553 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad