Vinay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2025)

Vinay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the orders dated 28.04.2025 and 06.08.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Execution Case No. 143 of 2024; the court concerned may thereafter enforce/recover maintenance arrears as a money decree of a civil court per Code of Civil Procedure provisions as per law laid down in Rajnesh (supra); counter affidavit from opposite party no. 2 dispensed with.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 28.04.2025 and 06.08.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Execution Case No. 143 of 2024, issuing a recovery warrant and a Non-Bailable Warrant against the applicant to recover arrears of maintenance, should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The application is allowed and the order dated 28.04.2025 as well as the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba are quashed.

Ratio / Principle

It is made clear that the court concerned may proceed to enforce or recover the arrears of maintenance as a 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).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 74), Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 36507 of 2025, Vinay Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr.; decided September 22, 2025 — Allowed. Quashes the orders dated 28.04.2025 and 06.08.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Execution Case No. 143 of 2024 (arising out of an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C.), whereby a recovery warrant and a Non-Bailable Warrant had been issued against the applicant to recover arrears of maintenance. Makes clear that the court concerned may enforce or recover maintenance arrears as a money decree of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, as law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha ((2021) 2 SCC 324) (enforcement routes recited: Section 28A Hindu Marriage Act 1956, Section 20(6) D.V. Act, Section 128 Cr.P.C.; money-decree route via Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order XXI C.P.C.). Counter affidavit from opposite party no. 2 dispensed with, the point being settled law.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36507 of 2025

Vinay Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Chandra Mani Pandey, Tushar Krishnani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 74

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

During the course of hearing learned counsel for the applicant has corrected the prayer clause of this application.

Sri Chandra Mani Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tejbhan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

The present application u/s 528 of BNSS of 2023 has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 28.04.2025 as well as order dated 06.08.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Execution Case No. 143 of 2024, arising out of an application under Section 128 of Cr.P.C., whereby recovery warrant as well as Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued against the applicant to recover the arrears of maintenance.

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 and NonBailable 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 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.

NA528 No. 36507 of 2025

2

In view of above facts and circumstances, the application is allowed and the order dated 28.04.2025 as well as order dated 06.08.2025 are 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 22, 2025

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

MAA/-

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad