HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15951 of 2026 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant against the non bailable warrant order dated 17.07.2025 as well as order dated 31.05.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1452 of 2022 (Smt. Veena Sharma and others Vs. Harendra Sharma), under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. whereby applicant has been directed to pay remaining arrears of maintenance allowance awarded to the opposite party No. 2 and her minor son. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- to the opposite party No. 2 her minor son has been awarded exparte from the date of application, without considering the income of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the opposite party No. 2 has deserted the applicant and that the applicant tried his level best to bring her back but all in vain. He further submits that since the proceedings were initiated exparte against the applicant, thus the applicant was not aware of the same and the proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. were initiated and recovery warrant as well as non bailable warrant has also been issued against him, therefore, both the impugned orders are illegal and are liable to be quashed by this Court. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer and has argued that two times proceeding under Section 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant then he deposited the arrears of maintenance allowanceto the wife. Thus, the impugned exparte judgement and order as well as proceeding of recovery initiated against the applicant are perfectly legal, just and proper and call for no interference by this Court. Further the impugned non bailable warrant can be recalled by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harendra Sharma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) court concerned, if applicant moves such an application before the court concerned. 6. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties as well as after perusing the record, this Court finds that Rs. 3,000/- was granted to the wife by the Family Court vide order dated 05.08.2022 from the date of application, i.e., 06.10.2020. When no any amount was paid by the applicant to the deserted wife, she was having no option but to file execution application for recovery of due arrears of amount of maintenance as awarded, wherein the court concerned passed non bailable warrant as well as recovery warrant against the applicant. The applicant is habitual of not paying the maintenance amount to the wife. Further, learned counsel fails to show any illegality, impropriety or infirmity in both the impugned orders. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate that for recalling of the impugned bailable warrant the applicant has liberty to move such an application before the court concerned. 7. In view of above, the present application filed under Section 528 BNSS has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. May 5, 2026 Mustaqeem. NA528 No. 15951 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad