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 1^st, 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.

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 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 was argued that on the date fixed before the learned Magistrate, the Applicant could not appear due to unavoidable circumstances, and an exemption application was moved through counsel, yet the court below proceeded ex par