The court established that non-bailable warrants for maintenance enforcement cannot be issued without prior attempts to recover dues through established procedural mechanisms under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :

BHUWAN GOYAL, J.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8064/2024 :

1. Matter comes up on an application for early hearing of the case.

2. The application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this criminal misc. petition is being decided finally today at this stage.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 8039/2024; 8037/2024; 8040/2024; 8059/2024 and 8064/2024

3. Since these criminal misc. petitions arise out of a matrimony dispute having arisen between the same parties, they are being decided by this common order.

4. These criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.11.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Women Atrocity Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Cr. Revision Petition Nos. 42/2024, 44/2024, 43/2024, 41/2024 and 40/2024, whereby the revisional court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 29.7.2024 passed by ACJM No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur in case No. 31027/2024, 190/2017, 31029/2024, 251/2016, and 252/2016 titled Smt. Dharmveer Kaur Versus Daljeet Singh Saluja, by which on the applications filed by the respondent under Section 125(3) CrPC, DCP, Chopasani, Housing Board, Jodhpur was directed to arrest the petitioner and produce him in the Court, on failure to recover the maintenance amount.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in relation to proceedings under Section 125(3) CrPC, first of all recovery warrant should have been issued and non bailable warrant could not have been issued directly. He further submits that there was no report on record with regard to levy of the amount by attachment and sale of the immovable property of the petitioner, but the learned trial court wrongly issued the arrest warrant simultaneously. The revisional court also acted contrary to the mandatory provision of law and committed material illegality. Thus, the impugned orders dated 6.11.2024 and 29.7.2024 are liable to be quashed and set-aside.

6. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Criminal Reference No. 2/2020 (In Re A. Ref. U/s. 395 CrPC Versus Unknown; decided on 3.12.2021); judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Cr. Revision Petition No 9 of 1993 (Smt. Vimla Versus State of Rajasthan and Anr. ; decided on 12.2.1994); judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No. 305/2014 (Mr. Sachin Versus Sau Sushma; decided on 6.5.2014); judgment passed by the Allahabad High court in Application u/s. 482 No. 4483 of 2022 (Vipin Kumar Versus State of UP and another; decided on 25.2.2022) and the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in Application U/s. 482 No. 22043 of 2023 (Deepak Singh Rajawat Versus State of UP and 2 others; decided on 13.7.2023).

7. Learned Dy. G.A. has opposed the same.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

9. In the case of Smt. Vimla (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held as under:

“6. Under Section 125(3) if any person fails to comply with the order passed for maintenance, then the Magistrate may issue a warrant for levy of the amount due in the manner provided for levying fine and may sentence such person for whole or any part of each month’s allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment is soon