Single judge allowed the application to quash an order enforcing maintenance arrears via arrest and recovery warrants, directing the concerned authority to recover the amount as a money decree under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Quashing of order dated 28.07.2025; direction to enforce maintenance as money decree under CPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33839 of 2025
Sumit Rao
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
| Counsel for Applicant(s) | : Dhananjay Pundir |
|---|---|
| Counsel for Opposite Party(s) | : G.A. |
| Court No.- 74 |
HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
Sri Dhananjay Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
The present application u/s 528 of BNSS of 2023 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Execution Case No. 1135 of 2023, arising out of an application under Section 128 of Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 28.07.2025, whereby Family Court, Deoria issued recovery warrant as well as arrest warrant against the applicant to recover the arrears of maintenance.
After some argument learned counsel for the applicant does not press the relief no. 2 to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.
Accordingly, relief no. 2 is dismissed as not pressed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the 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 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 order has been passed to enforce the recovery of arrears of maintenance by issuing recovery warrant as well as arrest warrant against the applicant without following the procedure as provided in the Civil Procedure Code.
NA528 No. 33839 of 2025
2
The matter is related to settled position of law. There is no other point for consideration except issuing recovery warrant as well as arrest 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 above facts and circumstances, the application is partly allowed and the order dated 28.07.2025 is 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 law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) .
September 8, 2025 MAA/-
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's order enforcing maintenance arrears via arrest and recovery warrants can be quashed due to non-compliance with Civil Procedure Code.
Whether maintenance debts should be recovered as money decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure following Supreme Court guidelines.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr.Explained¶14
Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Sumit Rao
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
