HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36992 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Pandey, 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 8.5.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in Execution Case No. 2026 of 2024, arising out of an application under Section 144(3) B.N.S.S. (Section 125(3), 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 without recording the reason to comply with the order by the applicant with regard to sufficient cause to breach the order, impugned order has been passed. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without complying the order of levying fine or imposing any sentence against the applicant for unpaid maintenance. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 8.5.2025 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajnish Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Adesh Kumar .....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 as well 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 order dated 8.5.2025 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 the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra). September 24, 2025 T. Sinha NA528 No. 36992 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad