Allahabad High Court
KAMAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DEEPAK VERMA
Holding
The Court held that recovery and arrest warrants are improper for enforcing maintenance arrears and quashed them, directing enforcement as a money decree under the CPC.
Summary
The applicant, Kamal Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant and recovery warrant issued by the trial court to enforce interim maintenance awarded to his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The wife had obtained interim maintenance ex parte and the trial court issued the warrants to recover arrears. The applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) SCC 324, which held that recovery and arrest warrants are not the proper mode of enforcing maintenance and that such orders should be executed as a money decree under the Civil Procedure Code and relevant statutes. The High Court examined whether the trial court erred in issuing the warrants without following CPC procedures. Finding the trial court’s action contrary to the Supreme Court precedent, the Court partially allowed the application, quashed the warrants dated 16‑05‑2026, and directed that the arrears be recovered as a civil money decree.
Issues considered
- Whether a recovery warrant and arrest warrant can be issued for enforcement of maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC.
- Whether enforcement of maintenance arrears must follow the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code and statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act and the Domestic Violence Act.
- Whether the trial court erred in issuing the non‑bailable warrant without adhering to CPC provisions.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure — s. 51, 55, 58, 60
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 128, 528
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 — s. 28A
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 20(6)
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- execution warrant
- arrest warrant
- Civil Procedure Code
- Hindu Marriage Act
- Domestic Violence Act
- Supreme Court precedent
- quash
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40802 of 2026
Kamal Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Singh Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicant with prayer to quash the entire proceeding as well as N.B.W.
issued by court below in execution case No.07/2025 on dated 16.05.2026
in Criminal Misc. Case No.525/2022 (Smt. Archana Baghel and others
Versus Kamal Singh), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Rampura,
District Jalaun.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 is
wife of applicant and on account of some matrimonial dispute, opposite
party no.2 initiated proceeding U/s 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance
and the same was allowed vide order dated 05.12.2024 ex parte. For
recovery of interim maintenance, opposite party no.2 moved execution
application before trial court, thereafter, trial court issued NBW dated
16.05.2026 against the applicant. Applicant's counsel placed reliance over
the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh
vs. Neha & Another (2021)2 SCC 324, recovery warrant and arrest
warrant cannot be initiated by the court for recovery of arrears and
maintenance.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by trial
court is against the provision laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs.
Neha & Another (2021)2 SCC 324, wherein it has been directed that the
NA528 No. 40802 of 2026
2
enforcement/execution of order of maintenance, may be enforced under
Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 nos. 2 to 4 is
dispensed with.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application is partly
allowed and the orders dated 16.05.2026, is hereby quashed.
8. 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 per the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra).
(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 23, 2026
Nitin Verma
Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…