# Mohammad Shahzad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 332
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 39747 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajiv Lochan Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-shahzad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53997
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the definition of rape whereas sub section (iv) of Section 63 provides 'with her consent, when the man knows
that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom
she is or believes herself to be lawfully marriage;

20. It would also not be out of place to mention that Section 120 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
provides a presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape. This presumption in certain cases,
only qualifies upon the authorities provided under sub-section (2) of Section 64 of B.N.S., wherein the offence of
rape committed by police officers, public servant, member of Armed Forces and others is dealt with. In the same
category the act of a teacher is also provided under subsection (2)(f) of Section 64, reiterated, being a relatives,
guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards a woman, commits rape of such
woman;' the presumption provides that where intercourse by accused is proved and the question is whether it was
that the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court
that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.

21. Even otherwise Section 69 B.N.S. provides for sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means
and false promise of marriage as one of the deceitful means. In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction
between 'false promise of marriage, which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken' and
'a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled'. It is former which out
rightly attracts penal provision.

22. In the present case, the applicant accused prima facie knew from the beginning that he could
not marry the opposite party no. 2, as he was already married. It is a matter of trial to decipher from
evidence, whether the opposite party no. 2, victim was knowing the marital status of the applicant and
despite that she has entered into sexual intercourse with him, which continued for eleven long years. On
the basis of prima facie facts, this Court does not find sufficient ground to quash the charge sheet and
the proceedings. Hence, the application moved under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed.

23. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.
---------
(2026) 1 ILRA 332
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 39747 of 2025

Mohammad Shahzad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
1 All. Mohammad Shahzad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
333
Matter pertains to Whether, for enforcement of arrears of maintenance under S 125(3) read with S 421
Cr.P.C., in proceedings under S 128 Cr.P.C., the Family Court can issue simultaneous recovery and arrest
warrants, or whether recovery in the manner provided for levying fines must first be undertaken and
exhausted before any sentence of imprisonment can be imposed.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 125(3), 128 and 421 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 - S. 528 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Ss. 10 and 18 - Enforcement of Maintenance
Orders - Issuance of simultaneous warrants for recovery and arrest - Legality of - Held, "no
warrant of arrest can be issued" for recovery of arrears - Efforts are to be made "first, to recover
the arrears of maintenance/enforce the order of maintenance in the manner provided for levying
fines" - Simultaneous issuance of warrants for recovery and arrest "is not contemplated under
the Code of Criminal Procedure." (Paras 9, 10).
Family Courts Act, 1984 - Ss 10 and 18 - Execution of orders under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. - To be
executed "in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code" - Family Court
not empowered to curtail liberty except in manner provided by Cr.P.C. or C.P.C. (Paras 14, 15,
16).
Constitution of India - Article 21 - "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law" - Liberty cannot be curtailed except in
accordance with law - Issuance of arrest warrants for recovery of maintenance arrears
illegal.(Paras 17, 18, 19).
Supreme Court directions - Rajnesh v. Neha - Enforcement/Execution of maintenance orders -To
be enforced as per statutory provisions - Word 'may' used in para 132 - CPC provisions "in
addition to the regular mode of recovery provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure". (Paras
6, 25, 26, 27).
Practice of issuing non-bailable warrants by Family Courts for recovery of maintenance - "Clearly
against specific statutory provisions and the directions given by the Supreme Court" - "This
practice must stop"(Para 11).(E-7)

Held: A perusal of S 421 Cr.P.C. indicates that no warrant of arrest can be issued - It is only on failure to
deposit the amount or arrears remaining after execution of the warrant, that imprisonment can be awarded -
the simultaneous issuance of warrants for recovery and arrest is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal
Procedure - Nothing in the Act of 1984 empowers the Family Court to curtail the liberty of an individual except
in the manner provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Code of Civil Procedure, as the case may
be - S 18(2) of the Act of 1984 clearly provides that an order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of
the Cr.P.C. shall be executed in the manner provided for the execution of such order by the Code of Criminal
Procedure - Liberty of an individual can be curtailed only in the manner prescribed by law and not otherwise -
The act of issuance of arrest warrants is not merely a misinterpretation of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court and the statutory law itself, but, is an act of overstepping its jurisdiction by the Family Court, which is
absolutely illegal - A person who is liable to pay maintenance is not to be treated as a person who has
committed a crime - As stated above, no arrest warrant can be issued for recovery of arrears of maintenance,
this application is allowed -The impugned order dated 25.09.2025 is, thus, set aside." (Paras -
9,10,14,16,18,19,28)

Case Law Cited
Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another (2021) 2 SCC 324

List of Acts
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908; Family Courts Act, 1984; Uttar Pradesh Family Courts (Court) Rules, 2006; Constitution of
India (Article 21)

List of Keywords
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Maintenance; Arrears; Recovery Warrant; Arrest Warrant; S 125(3) Cr.P.C. - S 421 Cr.P.C.;
Enforcement/Execution; Family Court; Article 21; Personal Liberty; Attachment of Salary; Order XXI C.P.C.

Case Arising From
Application under S 528 B.N.S.S. filed for quashing the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Aligarh in Misc. Case No. 548 of 2024 under S 128 Cr.P.C., whereby
recovery/arrest warrants were issued to recover arrears of maintenance.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sri Kuldeep Kumar
Advs. for the Respondents:
Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Lochan Shukla, J.)

1. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the
order dated 25.09.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Aligarh in
Misc. Case No.548 of 2024 (Smt. Shajiya Khan & Another vs. Mohammad Shahzad) under Section
128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), Police Station - Banna
Devi, District Aligarh, whereby the Additional Principal Judge has issued recovery/arrest warrants
against the applicant to recover arrears of maintenance against the applicant passed in Maintenance
Case No.1111 of 2017 (Smt. Shajiya Khan & Anr. vs. Mohammad Shahzad) under Section 125
Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that pursuant to an order passed against the
applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C., recovery and arrest
warrants have been issued against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant, relying upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, contends that
the orders for maintenance can be enforced in view of the specific statutory provisions as well as
the directions given by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra).

4. Learned A.G.A. has contended that this Court, vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed in
Criminal Revision No. 1235 of 2024, had granted protection to the applicant, subject to the
condition that he shall pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- per
month to the opposite party No. 3. This Court had further directed the applicant to pay 50% of the
arrears of maintenance within a period of one month, and the remaining 50% of the arrears of
maintenance was directed to be paid to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 in three equal monthly
installments commencing from 25th June, 2024. It was further directed that, in case of default in
the said payments, the Principal Judge would be at liberty to recover the arrears along with 10%
interest. Learned A.G.A. states that as the directions of the High Court have been violated, the
impugned order has rightly been passed issuing recovery warrants against the applicant. Learned
A.G.A., however, states that there was nothing in the order of the High Court to indicate that the
arrest of the applicant would be effected to recover the arrears of maintenance. Learned A.G.A.
1 All. Mohammad Shahzad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
335
also does not dispute the fact that no arrest warrants can be issued for recovery of arrears of
maintenance under Sections 125(3) and 128 Cr.P.C. He states that the maintenance orders can be
enforced in view of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the decision of Rajnesh (supra),
referred to above.

5. In view of the order that is being proposed to be passed, no notices are being issued to
opposite parties No. 2 and 3.

6. The Supreme Court, in the case of Rajnesh (supra), in paragraph 132, has given the
following directions with respect to the enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance:

"(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance

132. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or
decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;
Section 20(6) of the DV Act; and Section 128 of CrPC, 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 CPC,
more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21."

7. Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. provides the manner in which a warrant for the recovery of the
maintenance amount may be issued. Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"125(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order,
any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due
in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part
of each month's allowance allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses
of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made;

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this
section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year
from the date on which it became due;

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living
with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal
stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is
satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a
mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him."

8. A perusal of the provision, quoted above, clearly indicates that recovery of the arrears of
maintenance can be made in the manner provided for levying fines. The procedure for issuance of
warrant for levy of fine has been given under Section 421 Cr.P.C., which are quoted herein below:
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"421. Warrant for levy of fine.-(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine
the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the
following ways, that is to say, it may-

(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any moveable
property belonging to the offender;

(b) issue a warrant to the collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount
as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both of the defaulter;

Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender
shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default,
no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers
it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation
out of the fine under section 357.

(2) The Stale Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants
under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any
claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any properly attached in execution
of such warrant.

(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1),
the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of
land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law;

Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of
the offender." [emphasis added]

9. A perusal of the above mentioned provisions would clearly indicate that for recovery of
maintenance amount, a warrant is to be issued, which is to be executed in the manner provided for
under Section 421 Cr.P.C. and a perusal of Section 421 Cr.P.C. indicates that no warrant of arrest
can be issued. It is only on failure to deposit the amount or arrears remaining after execution of the
warrant, that imprisonment can be awarded.

10. Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that efforts are to be made, first, to recover the
arrears of maintenance/enforce the order of maintenance in the manner provided for levying fines,
and if the warrant is not executed or is partially executed, the Court may sentence the person,
directed to pay the maintenance amount, to imprisonment for the whole or any part of each month's
allowance for maintenance, interim maintenance, or expenses of proceedings, as the case may be,
which remain unpaid after the execution of the recovery warrant. Thus, the simultaneous issuance
of warrants for recovery and arrest is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Even the directions given by the Supreme Court do not contemplate any such practice, as has been
adopted in the present case.

11. This Court has observed in a number of cases that orders are being passed by the Family
Courts issuing warrants of arrest along with recovery warrants and in some cases issuing nonbailable warrants. This is clearly against specific statutory provisions and the directions given by
the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). This practice must stop and the recovery of
arrears of maintenance is to be made in the manner prescribed by the statute or not at all.
1 All. Mohammad Shahzad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
337

12. Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. itself contemplates that cause can be shown by the person against
whom order of maintenance has been passed for not complying with the order, as the opening lines
of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. state that "If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to
comply with the order.....". Thus, sufficient cause can be shown for non-payment of the amount.
The procedure for enforcement of orders of maintenance/interim maintenance ought to be of first
issuance of notice to the person ordered to pay maintenance. Thereafter, if sufficient cause is not
shown, warrants for recovery can be issued in the manner provided for levying fines. The
procedure, as indicated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), may then be
followed. Any other procedure for recovery of arrears of maintenance, which has not been provided
for under Sections 125(3) and 421 Cr.P.C., and paragraph 132 of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Rajnesh (supra), is not to be resorted to.

13. The Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1984"), also provides for the
procedure, which is to be followed by the Family Courts in deciding proceedings before it. Section
10 of the Act of 1984, provides as under :

"10. Procedure generally.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being
in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings [other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] before a Family Court and for the purposes of
the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have
all the powers of such court.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings
under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying
down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the
suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other."

14. Even though, sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act of 1984 gives liberty to the Family
Court in laying down its own procedure but the same is restricted to arriving at a settlement in
respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one
party and denied by the other. Nothing in the Act of 1984 empowers the Family Court to curtail the
liberty of an individual except in the manner provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the
Code of Civil Procedure, as the case may be.

15. Section 18 of the Act of 1984 provides for execution of decrees and orders. Section 18 of
the Act of 1984 is reproduced herein below:

"18. Execution of decrees and orders.-(1) A decree or an order [other than an order
under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)], passed by a Family Court
shall have the same force and effect as a decree or order of a civil court and shall be executed in
the same manner as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the
execution of decrees and orders.
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) An order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such
order by that Code.

(3) A decree or order may be executed either by the Family Court which passed it or by
the other Family Court or ordinary civil court to which it is sent for execution."

16. Section 18(2) of the Act of 1984 clearly provides that an order passed by a Family Court
under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. shall be executed in the manner provided for the execution of such
order by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, a perusal of the provisions, enumerated above, and
the directions given by the Supreme Court leave no room for doubt that for enforcement of an order
of maintenance, warrants of arrest cannot be issued. Liberty of an individual can be curtailed only
in the manner prescribed by law and not otherwise.

17. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Article 21 is sacrosanct and
forms the basic structure of our Constitution. The fundamental right, so granted to an individual,
cannot in any manner, be abridged except in the manner provided for by the law and not on a
misunderstanding of the law by the Courts.

18. In the opinion of this Court, the act of issuance of arrest warrants is not merely a
misinterpretation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the statutory law itself, but, is an
act of overstepping its jurisdiction by the Family Court, which is absolutely illegal.

19. A person who is liable to pay maintenance is not to be treated as a person who has
committed a crime. His personal dignity and liberty cannot be trampled with by the Courts in their
excessive enthusiasm in enforcement of orders of maintenance, even if they come to a finding that
there has been a deliberate non-payment of arrears of maintenance pursuant to an order of Court.
The Courts must keep in mind that every individual must be treated with dignity that befits his
status as a free citizen of the country. The manner in which arrest warrants are routinely issued is
not only illegal but also inhumane, as it tramples upon the dignity of an individual who is subjected
to arrest and produced before the Court as if he were accused of a crime.

20. The orders of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) have been duly communicated to all
Courts, and any violation of the same cannot be allowed to go unchecked.

21. Another issue, which has been raised during arguments before this Court regarding
execution of the orders of maintenance in the manner provided for the execution of money decrees
as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra). The learned counsel for the applicant,
relying upon the directions given in paragraph 132, contends that procedure under Section 125(3)
Cr.P.C. ought not be followed, but, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically
Sections 51, 55, 58 and 60 read with Order XXI C.P.C. have to be followed.

22. As indicated above, the provisions of the Act of 1984 clearly indicate that for proceedings
under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure shall be followed.
1 All. Mohammad Shahzad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
339

23. The Uttar Pradesh Family Courts (Court) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.
Family Court Rules"), in Chapter VIII, provide for the execution of orders of the Family Court. For
ready reference, Chapter VIII of the U.P. Family Court Rules, are reproduced hereinbelow:

"35. Execution of Orders.- The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure for execution of
orders passed in all matters except the orders passed on petition under Chapter IX of Code of
Criminal Procedure shall apply. The provisions of execution of orders in Code of Criminal
Procedure shall apply to orders passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

36. An order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
maintenance allowance may be executed by the Court by attachment of salary as provided in
section 60 and order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure in addition to the mode of recovery
provided in subsection (3) of Section 125 of the said Code.

37. An application under Section 125/126 under Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal
Procedure may be filed at the place where the wife, minor child, parent, as the case may be resides.

38. The pendency of an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 or 126 as
the case may be under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not be a ground to stay
or suspend the main proceedings under Section 125 or 126 of the Code.

39. In the pending execution proceeding for recovery of any defaulted amount the Family
Courts shall not register a new case. An application for recovery of defaulted amount of
maintenance in the pending execution case shall be sufficient for recovering the amount."

24. A perusal of Rule 36, quoted above, shows that the procedure prescribed under the Code
of Civil Procedure specifically for attachment of salary under Section 60 and Order XXI of the
Code of Civil Procedure is in addition to the mode of recovery provided in sub-section (3) of
Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, it leaves no room for doubt that the procedure, which is to be followed
for recovery of arrears of maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is as given under
Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.

25. The Supreme Court while considering the case of Rajnesh (supra), was not only dealing
with award of maintenance/enforcement of maintenance orders only under the Code of Criminal
Procedure but also under other laws. To interpret the directions of the Supreme Court in the
manner, as is being suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant, would be incorrect. The
Supreme Court, in paragraph No.132 of the directions given has used the word 'may' and the same
has been done taking into account the various provisions under which maintenance can be sought
by an aggrieved person.

26. Thus, it is no doubt true that the U.P. Family Court Rules provide for attachment of salary
as provided in Section 60 and Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure; however, the same is only
in addition to the regular mode of recovery provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Furthermore, Rule 36 provides for the attachment of salary, as provided under Section 60 and
Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and would not apply to cases where the person against
whom the order of maintenance is to be enforced is not receiving salary.

27. In the opinion of the Court, the provisions of Rule 36 of the U.P. Family Court Rules,
Section 60 C.P.C. and Order XXI of C.P.C., when read together, leave no room for doubt that the
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
same would apply only to salaries, as provided under Rule 48 and 48-A of Order XXI of the Code
of Civil Procedure. The entire chapter for execution of decrees cannot be made applicable as the
Code of Criminal Procedure is quite exhaustive when it comes to the manner of recovery of arrears
of maintenance /enforcement of orders of maintenance. The provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure specifically Section 60 and Order XXI have been provided under Rule 36 in addition to
the regular modes of recovery for salaried professions. Thus, the contention of the applicant that the
recovery can be made only by invoking the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, that too,
with respect to the execution of money decrees is not in consonance with the directions given by
the Supreme Court, the Family Courts Act and Rules and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

28. As stated above, no arrest warrant can be issued for recovery of arrears of maintenance,
this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Aligarh in Misc. Case No.548 of 2024 (Smt. Shajia Khan &
Another vs. Mohd. Shahzad) under Section 128 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Banna Devi, District
Aligarh is, thus, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Court No. 2, Aligarh, to decide the application for enforcement of the order of maintenance
strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and the directions given by the Supreme Court
in Rajnesh (supra).
---------
(2026) 1 ILRA 340
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 48021 of 2025

Manjoo Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether criminal revision against confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate under
S. 5-A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 lies before the Sessions Judge or the Divisional
Commissioner in light of Government Notification dated 15.10.2024. (Para 12, 14)

Headnotes
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) - S. 528 - Maintainability - Confiscation of vehicle -
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 - S. 5-A - Statutory Remedy - Revisional Jurisdiction.
Criminal Revision - Maintainability - "Since the revision was filed after Government Notification
dated 15.10.2024, therefore, it was not maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge."
Government Notification dated 15.10.2024 - Revisional Jurisdiction - "the Governor is pleased to
authorise the Divisional Commissioner to satisfy himself at any time as to the legality or
propriety of the action taken under the S. 5-A call for and examine the record of any case and
pass such order thereon as he may deem fit."