Allahabad High Court
AJAY SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The High Court allowed the revision, stayed the execution order, and directed the Family Court to decide the pending Section 145(2) application within ten days.
Summary
Ajay Singh, a BSF constable, filed a criminal revision challenging an execution order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court, Deoria, which was issued under Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. to enforce an ex parte maintenance order of Rs. 14,000 granted to Shashi Singh, who claims to be his wife from a purported 1998 marriage. Singh had earlier obtained the maintenance order on 13.05.2024, but Singh filed an application under Section 145(2) of the Family Courts Act on 06.09.2024 seeking its recall, which remains pending. The revisionist argued that the execution order should not be enforced while the Section 145(2) application is pending. The High Court allowed the revision, stayed the execution order, and directed the Family Court to decide the pending application within ten days, warning that non‑cooperation could permit continuation of the recovery order. The order was kept in abeyance pending final adjudication of the Section 145(2) application.
Issues considered
- Whether an execution order under Section 128 Cr.P.C. can be passed while an application under Section 145(2) of the Family Courts Act seeking recall of the maintenance order is pending.
- Whether the High Court can set aside the execution order and stay its operation pending resolution of the pending application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 128
- Family Courts Act — s. 145(2)
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- execution of maintenance order
- Section 128 Cr.P.C.
- Section 145(2) Family Courts Act
- revision
- ex parte order
- abeyance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2663 of 2026
Ajay Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rishi Kant Rai, Sudhir
Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
1. Shri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that he has preferred the instant criminal revision with
the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the
revision.
2. The relief which has been mentioned in the revision is
delineated below:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to allow this revision and
set aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by
Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Room No.-03, Deoria,
in Execution Case No. 700/2024 'Shashi vs. Ajay' U/s 128
Cr.P.C., and allow the objection 16C filed by revisionist in
the above execution case before family court."
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the
revisionist is working in the Border Security Force (B.S.F.) on
the post of Constable G.D. He further submits that his marriage
was solemnized in the year 2001 with Shashi Singh Gudiya and
from the wedlock, there are three children and the revisionist is
currently residing with his wife, Shashi Singh Gudiya and their
three children in West Bengal (at his posted place).
CRLR No. 2663 of 2026
2
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that
opposite party No.2, namely Shashi Singh, is claiming herself
to be the wife of the revisionist, alleging that her marriage with
the revisionist was solemnized on 22.05.1998. He further
submits that the revisionist has no knowledge about the alleged
marriage with Shashi Singh on 22.05.1998 and thus the claim
of opposite party No.2 to be the wife of the revisionist is false
and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the maintenance
amount was awarded by an ex parte order dated 13.05.2024 in
the tune of Rs. 14,000/- payable to opposite party No.2.
Against the said order dated 13.05.2024, the revisionist filed an
application under Section 145(2) BNSS on 06.09.2024 for
recalling the order on cost as provided under Section
145(2) BNSS and the application is still pending and during its
pendency, the impugned order of recovery as well as an arrest
warrant has been passed by the Additional Principal Judge,
Court No.3, Family Court, Deoria, vide order dated
16.03.2026.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that
before execution of the ex parte order, the pending application
under Section 145(2) BNSS may be directed to be decided by
the concerned Family Court and thereafter the recovery order
may be passed.
7. This Court, in the interest of justice, directs the Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Deoria to decide the
pending application filed under Section 145(2) BNSS within a
period of 10 days from the date of this order.
8. The impugned order dated 16.03.2026 is kept in abeyance
subject to the final adjudication of the pending application filed
under Section 145(2) BNSS.
9. It is made clear that in case of non-cooperation by the
revisionist in deciding the pending application filed under
CRLR No. 2663 of 2026
3
Section 145(2) BNSS, the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Deoria may continue the recovery order passed earlier.
10. With the above observations and directions, the revision is
allowed.
April 23, 2026
K.Tiwari
(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…