IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 582 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.06.2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 Rajan Arya @ Kumar Rajanarya …. Petitioner Versus Sonali Gupta .... Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Petitioner : Servedaman Rathore, Advocate.

For Respondent : Nemo Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanah, District Sirmour at Nahan H.P. (learend Trial Court) vide which application for attachment of salary filed by the respondent was allowed and a direction was ____________________

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

issued to the petitioner’s Drawing and Disbursing ofÏcer (DDO) to attach the 1/3^rd salary of the petitioner and remit it to the Court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), which was allowed on 14.10.2019, and an amount of ₹15,000/- per month was awarded to her as maintenance from the date of the order. The maintenance amount was not paid; therefore, the respondent filed an execution application on 22.08.2023, asserting that ₹2,25,000/- was due/recoverable. Subsequently, another application was filed to attach the salary of the petitioner for recovery of ₹436,500/- due till the date of the application. Learned Trial Court passed an order dated 11.04.2025 that the petitioner did not appear before the Court; therefore, DDO was directed to attach the 1/3^rd salary of the petitioner and remit same to the Court.

3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Court, the present petition has been filed asserting that the respondent registered an F.I.R. against the petitioner on 27.05.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, and 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi (Commissionerate Varanasi). The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC before the High Court of Allahabad for quashing of the said F.I.R. and criminal proceedings arising out of it. The matter was referred to the Learned Mediator to resolve the dispute amicably. Learned Trial Court failed to take notice of thhe fact that mediation proceedings were pending. The petitiogner paid a sum of ₹1,00,000/- to the respondent on 1i4.04.2025. The parties decided to reunite and reside together on 08.05.2025. It was agreed that the proceedings pending between them would be kept in abeyance. The petitioner is taking care of his wife, and the parties have entered into a settlement. The respondent is residing with her children in a house provided by the petitioner with her children. The continuation of the proceedings despite the undertaking between the parties would be oppressive; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

4. Mr.Servedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the parties had settled their disputes on 08.05.2025. They agreed to keep the proceedings between them in abeyance. The execution of the order would put the settlement in jeopardy. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

5. I have given considerable thought to his submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

H6 It is undisputed that an order of maintenance at the rate of ₹15,000/- per month was passed by the Court on 14.10.2019. The petitioner mentioned in the petition that an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was paid to the respondent through a cheque, which was cleared on

14.04.2025. Therefore, it is apparent that the maintenance awarded by the Court has not been paid