Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed as not maintainable; applicant left at liberty to file revision or resort to appropriate remedy against the order dated 03.07.2024; prayer for quashing of recovery proceedings declined.

Issue for consideration

Whether an application under Section 528 BNSS (whose provisions are stated to be a reincarnation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973) is maintainable against an ex-parte judgment/order of the Family Court granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., given that the remedy for such orders is stated to lie in revision. +1 more

Court's answer

This application under Section 528 BNSS against the ex-parte impugned order (judgment) dated 03.07.2024 of the Family Court is not maintainable, and is therefore dismissed as not maintainable.

Ratio / Principle

An order of maintenance or interim maintenance passed by a Family Court is not an interlocutory order; against such orders the aggrieved person has the remedy of revision, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, and since the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 have been reincarnated in Section 528 BNSS, the same analogy applies to a Section 528 BNSS application.

Key takeaways

No material illegality or perversity was shown in the recovery proceedings; with nothing to show abuse of the process of Court or miscarriage of justice, no case is made out for quashing of the recovery proceedings.ratio¶¶12
The applicant would be at liberty to file revision or resort to appropriate remedy against the order dated 03.07.2024, in accordance with law.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.; Order Date 8.4.2025; 2025:AHC:50438) — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 11222 of 2025 (applicant Rahul) against ex-parte judgment dated 03.07.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 11 of 2021 (Smt. Savita Vs. Rahul) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granting maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2, and against the consequential recovery proceedings: DISMISSED. Held: (i) an order of maintenance or interim maintenance passed by a Family Court is not an interlocutory order; the aggrieved person's remedy is revision (Section 19, Family Court Act, 1984), hence an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — whose provisions are stated to be reincarnated in Section 528 BNSS — is not maintainable against such orders (following the Division Bench ruling in Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another, AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497; also relied on: Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:2129445; A shu Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023:AHC:165660; Manish Aggarwal Vs. Seema Aggarwal and Others 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4816); (ii) the case of Vishesh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others (2022:AHC:224768) relied on by counsel was held to have no applicability; (iii) no material illegality or perversity, nor abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice, was shown in the recovery proceedings, so no case for quashing arose. The applicant was left at liberty to file revision or resort to an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.