SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 39043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SANJEEV AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
C482 557 / 2024



##PAGE1##

2024:UHC:7350

Judgment Reserved on: 28.11.2025

Judgment Delivered on: 23.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.557 of 2024

Sanjeev Agarwal ......Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Another ....Respondents

Presence: Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Ayush Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel appearing through V.C.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Applicant,

Sanjeev Agrawal, seeking interference with the order dated 01.02.2024

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, in Misc. Case

No.97 of 2020 (Parul Agrawal v. Sanjeev Agrawal). By the said order, the

learned Magistrate issued a recovery warrant for an amount of

₹5,69,167/-, purportedly towards arrears of interim maintenance payable

under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The challenge in the present application is confined to the legality

and propriety of the recovery order dated 01.02.2024, and the manner in

which the recovery proceedings were conducted by the court below. The

Applicant does not, in these proceedings, assail the original orders

granting interim maintenance, but questions the issuance of coercive

recovery without adequate opportunity of hearing and without

adjudication of objections regarding the calculation of arrears.

1

Criminal Misc. Application No.557 of 2024........Sanjeev Agarwal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another.

Ashish Naithani J.

##PAGE2##

3. The Applicant and Respondent No. 2 are husband and wife. Their

marriage was solemnized on 01.12.1996 in accordance with Hindu rites

and customs. Three children were born from the wedlock. It is not in

dispute that the parties have been living separately since the year 2017.

4. On 24.05.2018, Respondent No. 2 instituted proceedings under

Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the learned Magistrate at Dehradun.

Along with the main application, an application under Section 23 of the

Act seeking interim maintenance was also filed.

5. By order dated 08.08.2019, the learned Magistrate directed the

Applicant to pay a sum of ₹ 25,000/- per month as interim maintenance to

Respondent No. 2 from the date of filing of the application.

6. The said order was carried in appeal by both parties. The Criminal

Appeal preferred by the Applicant was dismissed, while the appeal

preferred by Respondent No. 2 was partly allowed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, by judgment dated 05.12.2019,

whereby the interim maintenance was enhanced to ₹ 30,000/- per month.

7. Subsequent to the appellate judgment, disputes continued between

the parties regarding compliance with the maintenance orders.

Proceedings were initiated from time to time, including earlier

proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, which came to be dismissed by

this Court by order dated 27.12.2023.

8. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 initiated recovery proceedings before

the learned Judicial Magistrate, alleging non-payment of maintenance and

claiming arrears. In those proceedings, the learned Magistrate passed the

2

Criminal Misc. Application No.557 of 2024........Sanjeev Agarwal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another.

Ashish Naithani J.

##PAGE3##

impugned order dated 01.02.2024, issuing a recovery warrant for ₹

5,69,167/- against the Applicant.

9. Aggrieved by the issuance of the recovery warrant, the Applicant

has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section

482 CrPC, contending that the impugned order was passed ex parte,

without proper opportunity of hearing, and without adjudication of

objections relating to the calculation of the alleged arrears.

10. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the impugned

order dated 01.02.2024, issuing a recovery warrant of ₹ 5,69,167/-, was

passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top