Krishna Pal Alias Krishna Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section - 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following prayer :- "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application (u/s 528 of BNSS 2023) and set-aside the order dated 04.02.2025 as well as order dated 24.09.2024, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Execution Case No. 1053/2023 (Nanhi Devi and Another Vs. Krishna Pal), under Section - 125 (3) Cr.P.C. and quash the order dated 03.11.2020, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Case No. 52 of 2013 (Nanhi Devi and Another Vs. Krishna Pal), under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali, District - Pilibhit. "

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no.2 and 3 have filed a case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. and they were awarded maintenance by impugned order dated 03.11.2020 under Section - 125 Cr.P.C.. After that both the parties have compromised the matter but after three years the opposite party no.2 and 3 have initiated proceedings under Section - 125 (3) Cr.P.C., wherein by impugned order dated 24.09.2024, recovery warrants were issued against applicant and by impugned order dated 04.02.2025 again recovery warrants were issued against applicant. It was submitted that the recovery proceedings cannot be initiated after three years. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that all the above referred impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

So far order dated 03.11.2020, is concerned, by that order the Family Court has granted maintenance in favour of opposite party no.2 and 3 under Section - 125 Cr.P.C.. There is long and undue delay in filing of application under Section - 528 BNSS against that order. In view of the provisions of Section - 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 and the law laid down in case of Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:2129445, Ashu Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023:AHC:165660 and Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497, it is clear that an order of maintenance or interim maintenance passed by Family court is not an interlocutory order and that against such orders, aggrieved person has remedy of revision. It was held that against such order, application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

Thus, it is apparent that this application under Section - 528 B.N.S.S. against order of grant of maintenance under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Hence, this application under Section - 528 B.N.S.S. against the impugned order dated 03.11.2020 is dismissed as not maintainable.

So far the impugned orders dated 04.02.2025 and 24.09.2025, are concerned, by those orders, the Family Court has issued recovery warrants for realization of arrears of maintenance. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders dated 04.02.2025 and 24.09.2025. Merely because the said proceedings were initiated after three years, it cannot be said that the proceedings were not maintainable. Considering entire facts, it is apparent that there has been no abuse of the process of Court or any such patent illegality, so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking inherent powers under Section - 528 BNSS. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed.

The application under Section - 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed in above terms. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad