Allahabad High Court

HARENDRA SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

Holding

The application under Section 528 CrPC is dismissed as having no merit.

Summary

Harendra Sharma filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant dated 17‑07‑2025 and a Family Court order dated 31‑05‑2025 that directed him to pay maintenance arrears to his estranged wife and her minor son. He contended that the maintenance of Rs 3,000 per month was awarded ex parte without consideration of his income and that the wife had deserted him, rendering the proceedings illegal. The State argued that the applicant had been served notice under Sections 82/83 CrPC, had deposited the arrears, and that the orders were lawful. The High Court examined the record, noted that the applicant had failed to pay the maintenance since the order of 05‑08‑2022, and found no illegality in the impugned orders. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, stating that the applicant may approach the concerned court to seek recall of the warrant.

Issues considered

Whether the non‑bailable warrant and the Family Court maintenance order issued under Section 125(3) CrPC can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether the ex parte nature of the maintenance order renders it illegal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125(3), 528, 82, 83

Subjects

maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
non‑bailable warrant
ex parte order
quashing of order
Section 528 CrPC
family court
arrears of maintenance
desertion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15951 of 2026

Harendra Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrit Shanker Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the material brought on record.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicant against the non bailable warrant order dated 17.07.2025 as well
as order dated 31.05.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Firozabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1452 of 2022 (Smt. Veena
Sharma and others Vs. Harendra Sharma), under Section 125(3)
Cr.P.C. whereby applicant has been directed to pay remaining arrears of
maintenance allowance awarded to the opposite party No. 2 and her minor
son.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the monthly
maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- to the opposite party No. 2 her
minor son has been awarded exparte from the date of application, without
considering the income of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the opposite party No. 2 has deserted the applicant
and that the applicant tried his level best to bring her back but all in vain.
He further submits that since the proceedings were initiated exparte
against the applicant, thus the applicant was not aware of the same and the
proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. were initiated and recovery
warrant as well as non bailable warrant has also been issued against him,
therefore, both the impugned orders are illegal and are liable to be
quashed by this Court.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer and has argued
that two times proceeding under Section 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. have been
initiated against the applicant then he deposited the arrears of
maintenance allowanceto the wife. Thus, the impugned exparte judgement
and order as well as proceeding of recovery initiated against the applicant
are perfectly legal, just and proper and call for no interference by this
Court. Further the impugned non bailable warrant can be recalled by the
NA528 No. 15951 of 2026
2

court concerned, if applicant moves such an application before the court
concerned.

6. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by both the learned
counsel for the parties as well as after perusing the record, this Court finds
that Rs. 3,000/- was granted to the wife by the Family Court vide order
dated 05.08.2022 from the date of application, i.e., 06.10.2020. When no
any amount was paid by the applicant to the deserted wife, she was
having no option but to file execution application for recovery of due
arrears of amount of maintenance as awarded, wherein the court
concerned passed non bailable warrant as well as recovery warrant against
the applicant. The applicant is habitual of not paying the maintenance
amount to the wife. Further, learned counsel fails to show any illegality,
impropriety or infirmity in both the impugned orders. In such
circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate that for recalling of the
impugned bailable warrant the applicant has liberty to move such an
application before the court concerned.

7. In view of above, the present application filed under Section 528 BNSS
has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
May 5, 2026
Mustaqeem.

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…