Sanjeev Agarwal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 23 December, 2025

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.
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.
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
parte to issue a coercive recovery order.

11. Learned counsel contended that the recovery order does not reflect
any application of judicial mind to the question of computation of arrears.
According to learned counsel, payments made by the Applicant pursuant
to interim orders passed by this Court, as well as other payments made
earlier, were not taken into account, and the amount claimed by
Respondent No. 2 was accepted mechanically.

12. It was further urged that the recovery of maintenance, particularly
when disputed on the ground of calculation, requires adjudication and
cannot be reduced to a summary or ministerial exercise. Learned counsel
submitted that the impugned order, having been passed without
determination of objections and without hearing the Applicant, results in
serious civil consequences and, therefore, warrants interference by this
Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

3
Criminal Misc. Application No.557 of 2024........Sanjeev Agarwal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another.

Ashish Naithani J.
13. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 opposed the application and
submitted that the maintenance orders passed by the courts below, as
affirmed and enhanced in appeal, have attained finality. It was argued that
the Applicant has been consistently irregular in payment and that the
recovery proceedings were initiated only after repeated defaults.

14. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the Domestic
Violence Act is a beneficial legislation intended to secure timely monetary
relief to an aggrieved woman. That prolonged non-compliance defeats the
very object of the statute. It was contended that the learned Magistrate
acted within jurisdiction in issuing the recovery warrant and that no case
for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C is made out.

15. Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State supported the stand of
Respondent No. 2 and submitted that the impugned order was passed in
exercise of lawful authority vested in the Magistrate for enforcement of
maintenance orders, and that inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked
merely because the Applicant disputes the amount claimed.

16. This Court has considered the rival submissions and has carefully
examined the record. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is of a limited nature and is
not intended to function as an appellate or revisional forum. Interference
is warranted only where continuation of proceedings or an impugned
order results in abuse of the process of the court or failure of justice.

17. There is no dispute before this Court regarding the existence or
validity of the interim maintenance orders passed under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, nor is the entitlement of
Respondent No. 2 to seek enforcement of those orders under challenge.
The controversy in the present application is confined to the manner in

4
Criminal Misc. Application No.557 of 2024........Sanjeev Agarwal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another.

Ashish Naithani J.
which the recovery proceedings culminated in the issuance of the
recovery warrant dated 01.02.2024.

18. The power to enforce maintenance orders, including by issuance of
recovery warrants, undoubtedly vests in the Magistrate. However, such
power is not mechanical in nature. Where the person against whom
recovery is sought raises a dispute regarding the computation of arrears,
or asserts payment pursuant to interim judicial directions, the Magistrate
is required to apply judicial mind and record satisfaction as to the
correctness of the amount claimed.

19. The impugned order dated 01.02.2024 does not disclose any
consideration of the Applicant's objections or any determination of the
precise arrears payable after accounting for payments already made. The
order merely proceeds on the premise that the amount claimed by
Respondent No. 2 is recoverable, without recording reasons or
calculations supporting such a conclusion.

20. Equally significant is the fact that the recovery warrant was issued
ex parte. While absence of a party does not, by itself, vitiate proceedings,
issuance of a coercive recovery order involving substantial monetary
liability, without affording effective opportunity of hearing, cannot be
treated as a routine procedural step.

21. This Court also takes note of the fact that during the pendency of
the present proceedings, interim orders were passed directing the
Applicant to continue payment of monthly maintenance, and the record
indicates compliance with those directions. In such circumstances, it
becomes all the more necessary that any claim of arrears be freshly
examined after due adjustment, rather than enforced through a summary
recovery warrant.

5
Criminal Misc. Application No.557 of 2024........Sanjeev Agarwal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another.

Ashish Naithani J.
22. The Domestic Violence Act is beneficial legislation, and its
objectives must be advanced. At the same time, enforcement mechanisms
under the statute must conform to basic procedural safeguards.
Expediency cannot override the requirement of fairness, particularly when
the consequences of recovery proceedings are coercive in nature.

23. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned order dated
01.02.2024 suffers from procedural infirmity inasmuch as it was passed
without adjudication of objections relating to the computation of arrears
and without affording the Applicant an effective opportunity of hearing.
Permitting such an order to stand would result in a miscarriage of justice.

24. In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned 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) cannot be sustained in law.

ORDER

Accordingly, the order dated 01.02.2024, whereby a recovery warrant for an amount of ₹ 5,69,167/- was issued against the Applicant, is set aside.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims regarding entitlement or quantum of maintenance, and all such issues shall remain open to be considered by the court below.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 23.12.2025 Arti

ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbe e418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4 A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.12.23 16:38:31 +05'30'

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

Ashish Naithani J.