Allahabad High Court

VED PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Summary

The petition filed by Ved Prakash, a government servant and father, sought to set aside an order dated 08 July 2026 issued by the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court, Bareilly, which initiated recovery of a maintenance amount of Rs.6,000 per month under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner contended that a divorce settlement in 2010 had already provided a one‑time payment of Rs.10,000 for the daughter’s maintenance and that the daughter therefore had no right to claim further maintenance. He also argued that the original maintenance order dated 27 August 2025 was already under challenge in a criminal revision proceeding. The Court observed that the original maintenance order had not been stayed and that a modest lump‑sum settlement could not bar a subsequent claim for maintenance of a minor child. Consequently, the Court found the petition to be without merit and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 08 July 2026 initiating recovery under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be set aside.
Whether a prior settlement of Rs.10,000 in 2010 precludes further maintenance liability for the daughter.
Whether the original maintenance order dated 27 August 2025 is stayable pending the criminal revision.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 144(3)

Subjects

maintenance
family law
Section 144(3)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
execution
divorce settlement
minor child

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12213 of 2026

Ved Prakash
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Dwivedi, Gunjan Bhardwaj
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present petition is filed with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1, Bareilly, in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 2694 of 2025 (Km. Kajal v. Ved Prakash) under Section 144(3) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly
and quash the further proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 2694 of 2025 (Km.
Kajal v. Ved Prakash) under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly, as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, in the interest of justice. And/or any other order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury."

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is father
and order of maintenance for Rs.6000/- was passed on 27.8.2025. In the
aforesaid order Rs.6000/- per month was directed to be paid to opposite
party/daughter from 24.5.2023. It is submitted by learned counsel for
petitioner that the order dated 27.8.2025 is already under challenge before
this Court in Criminal Revision Defective No.1495 of 2026. It is further
submitted that recovery has been initiated against petitioner by means of
impugned order. Petitioner is government servant and from the salary of
A227 No. 12213 of 2026
2

petitioner, the amount was directed to be deducted.

3-A. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to the order dated 21.1.2010, which is at page 40 of the paper book,
where the divorce suit was settled between petitioner/husband and the
wife and one time payment of Rs.10,000/- was paid towards maintenance
of daughter in the year 2010. In view of settlement entered into between
petitioner/husband and wife, opposite party no.2/daughter has no right to
claim maintenance.

4. It is to be seen that the original order dated 27.8.2025 by which
Rs.6000/- towards maintenance was fixed by the Court is not subject
matter of challenge before this Court. The order dated 8.7.2026 is
subsequent order initiating recovery. Learned counsel for petitioner has
not argued that in the previous litigation the order dated 27.8.2025 has
been stayed by this Court. The execution proceedings are in respect of
order dated 27.8.2025. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that
compromise for meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance of minor
child cannot amount to refusal of maintenance if subsequently child
approaches the court for maintenance. The petitioner being father is
obliged under law to maintain her daughter. The amount of Rs.10,000/-
(lumsum) in 2010 as maintenance to daughter, who was not party to
settlement is highly unjust.

5. In view of aforesaid, the petition is devoid of merits and is,
accordingly, dismissed.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 8, 2026
D. Tamang

Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…