Recovery warrant must remain in abeyance pending decision on the application to recall the ex parte maintenance order.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Family Court should be directed to decide expeditiously the applicant’s pending application under Section 145(2) BNSS seeking recall of the ex parte proceedings and consequential maintenance order

The court held

The High Court disposed of the C-528 application, directing the Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, to decide the applicant’s Section 145(2) BNSS application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months of production of a certified copy of the order.

It also directed

The operation and effect of the recovery warrant dated 03.10.2026 were suspended until that application is decided.

The Court made no determination on the merits and disposed of any pending applications.

01Facts

The parties married in 2013 and have two minor children, who reside with the respondent.

¶ 4

The respondent initiated maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

¶ 4

The Family Court proceeded ex parte against the applicant and, by an order dated 18.02.2026, directed him to pay maintenance of ₹30,000 per month.

¶ 4–6

In subsequent recovery proceedings, the Family Court issued a recovery warrant.

¶ 4–6

The applicant’s application under Section 145(2) BNSS, seeking recall of the ex parte proceedings and consequential maintenance order, remained pending; the Family Court had directed him to deposit one-third of the outstanding amount.

¶ 4–6

The judgment refers to the impugned order date as 03.01.2026 in paragraph 2, but later identifies the recovery-warrant order as dated 03.10.2026.

¶ 2, 6, 7, 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Family Court should be directed to decide expeditiously the applicant’s pending application under Section 145(2) BNSS seeking recall of the ex parte proceedings and consequential maintenance order

¶ 7–9

ii.2. Whether the recovery warrant should remain in abeyance until that application is decided

¶ 7, 9

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 144(3) and 145(2) BNSS in the context of the maintenance and recovery proceedings.

¶ 8–10

It directed that the pending application be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law, without treating the High Court’s observations as expressing any view on the merits.

¶ 8–10

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a further substantive rule governing either provision.

¶ 8–10

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 144 Section 145

04Reasoning

The Court confined its consideration to the applicant’s limited procedural requests and did not examine the merits of the maintenance order or the recall application.

¶ 7–10

Because the recall application was pending before the Family Court, the Court considered it appropriate to require that court to decide it expeditiously.

¶ 7–10

To preserve the position pending that decision, it ordered the recovery warrant to remain in abeyance; the Family Court was nevertheless required to determine the application independently and in accordance with law.

¶ 7–10