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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The application was dismissed; the applicant was given liberty to file a criminal revision against the maintenance order dated 04.06.2024, and certified copies are to be returned to counsel after retaining a photocopy on record.

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the Family Court's maintenance order dated 04.06.2024 (made under Section 125 CrPC in Case No.277 of 2016) is maintainable. +1 more

Court's answer

An order of maintenance or interim maintenance granted by the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC is not an interlocutory order; the aggrieved person has the remedy of revision against such an order, and accordingly this application under Section 528 BNSS against the maintenance order dated 04.06.2024 is not maintainable.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for quashing of the impugned order dated 04.06.2024 (the maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC) is hereby refused.

Key takeaways

No material illegality or perversity was shown in the impugned recovery warrant order dated 18.12.2024 issued in the execution case under Section 147 BNSS, and nothing shows any abuse of process of the Court or miscarriage of justice.ratio¶11
In view of the aforesaid, this application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.ratio¶12
As regards the impugned order dated 04.06.2024, the applicant is at liberty to file criminal revision or to resort to the remedy available under law; certified copies on record may be returned to learned counsel for the applicant after retaining a photocopy.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 71), Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 13585 of 2025, decided 7.5.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:76675). Rajkumar Yadav (applicant; counsel Siddharth) v. State of U.P. and Another (opposite party no.2 being Smt. Sarita Devi; counsel G.A.). The applicant sought quashing of (i) the Family Court maintenance order dated 04.06.2024 under Section 125 CrPC (Case No.277 of 2016) and (ii) the recovery warrant order dated 18.12.2024 under Section 147 BNSS (Case No. 1127 of 2024), both passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Room No.2, District-Deoria. Relying on the law laid down in Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay v. State of U.P. (2023:AHC:2129445), Ashu Jain v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2023:AHC:165660) and Liaqat Hussain v. Jainab Praveen and Another (AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497), the court held that a maintenance or interim maintenance order is not an interlocutory order, that revision is the proper remedy against such an order, and that an application under Section 528 BNSS against it is not maintainable; the prayer for quashing the 04.06.2024 maintenance order was therefore refused. As to the recovery warrant order, no material illegality or perversity was shown and nothing indicated abuse of process of the Court or miscarriage of justice. The application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed; the applicant was left free to file a criminal revision, and certified copies were ordered returned after retaining a photocopy.