Allahabad High Court
Uma Kant Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 21 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:27436 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 896 of 2026 Uma Kant Pandey .....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) :
Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
G.A. Court No. - 15 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Raebareli (in short "Family Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1151 of 2025, under Section 144(3) BNSS for recovery of arrears of maintenance dues against the applicant initiated in pursuance of the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the Family Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 800 of 2021, under Section 125 CrPC.
It is the case of the applicant that maintenance was awarded by the Family Court in favour of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 of Rs.3,000/- each, vide order dated 25.06.2025. For non-compliance of the order, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 144(3) BNSS No.18kha and vide impugned order dated 28.11.2025, the agricultural land of the applicant has been attached.
Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the agricultural land of the applicant cannot be attached under the provision of Section 144(3) BNSS. He has submitted that the Family Court has awarded maintenance, which is excessive and is not commensurate with the income of the applicant.
He has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Deepa Joshi Vs. Gaurav Joshi, 2026 INSC 370 as well as the judgment of this Court rendered in Mohammad Shahzad Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors., 2026:AHC:10500. He has also relied on Government Order dated 28.12.2007 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, a copy of which is taken on record, and has submitted that as per the said Order, if the agricultural land is less than one hectare, the same cannot be attached.
Shri Vivek Gupta, learned AGA has invited attention of the Court towards Sections 144(3) and 147 BNSS. Section 144(3) BNSS provides that 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 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.
He has submitted that the manner provided is in consonance with Section 144(3) BNSS and Section 461 BNSS.
Relevant part of Section 461 of BNSS is quoted below :
"461. Warrant for levy of fine. (1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, but no such payment has been made, 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 movable 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 395.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has admitted that against the order dated 25.06.2025, the applicant has filed Criminal Revision No. 1123 of 2025 (Uma Kant Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others) before this Court in which no interim relief has been granted.
Shri Vivek Gupta, learned AGA has submitted that once the revision has been filed against the order dated 25.06.2025, the applicant may press the application for interim relief filed therein but he cannot challenge the impugned order dated 28.11.2025, which has been passed by the Family Court for compliance of the order of maintenance. Once the maintenance order exists, the compliance has to be made.
I have heard Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Vivek Gupta, learned AGA.
After going through the record, it is evident that Section 461 BNSS in consonance with Section 144(3) BNSS provides for arrears of maintenance for which purpose the agriculture land can be attached. Thus, there is no illegality committed by the Family Court while attaching the agricultural land of the applicant. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments rendered Deepa Joshi (Supra) and Mohammad Shahzad (Supra). The facts of the case of Deepa Joshi (Supra) is quite different and that pertains to income of the husband who was employed in Canara Bank, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable. Similarly, the judgment rendered in Mohammad Shahzad (Supra) is also not applicable in the present case because that pertains to warrant of arrest whereas in the present case, the proceeding under Section 125 CrPC has been finalized and for compliance of the order dated 25.06.2025, the said proceeding has been initiated and the agricultural land has been attached. Learned counsel has relied on the Government Order mentioning therein that since the land of the applicant is less than one hectare, therefore, the same cannot be attached is also not sustainable. The order dated 28.11.2025 is a judicial order and has been issued in consonance with Section 461 BNSS read with Section 144(3) BNSS. Also, the Government Order has been issued by the Executive and cannot be enforced upon Courts. The said argument is also rejected. Moreover, the applicant has filed the criminal revision before this Court challenging the order dated 25.06.2025, in which no interim relief has been granted.
The application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.) April 21, 2026 Mohit Singh/-