Certainly. Based on the legal principles discussed in the provided judgement, similar judgements can be found in cases that address:

1. The proper procedure for the issuance of warrants for recovery of maintenance arrears, emphasizing that warrants of arrest should not be issued without first levying the amount due as a fine or attempting recovery through attachment and sale of movable property (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. The interpretation of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., specifically that the Magistrate's jurisdiction to sentence to imprisonment arises only after the failure to comply with maintenance orders and after the execution of warrants for recovery of the amount due (!) (!) .

3. The necessity for courts to follow the correct legal procedure when executing recovery warrants, particularly that arrest warrants should not be issued prematurely or without prior attachment of property or prior sentencing (!) (!) .

4. Judicial rulings that set aside illegal orders for arrest in maintenance cases where proper legal procedures for recovery and sentencing were not followed (!) (!) .

Searching for judgements that reaffirm these principles would involve focusing on cases that highlight the importance of following statutory procedures under Cr.P.C. for recovery of maintenance arrears, ensuring that warrants of arrest are issued only after proper steps such as attachment or sentencing have been undertaken.