Allahabad High Court
Bhupendra Kumar Bansal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 December, 2022
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10922 of 2022
Petitioner :- Bhupendra Kumar Bansal
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, P.K. Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard Mr. P.K. Srivastava, holding brief of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and Mr. Sagar Mishra, learned counsel who has filed vakalatnama today on behalf of private respondent No.2, which is taken on record. .
The present application has been filed to set aide order dated 14.9.2022, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC, Rom No.21, Allahabad in complaint case No.10997 of 2011 under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, P.S. Kotwali, district Prayagraj/Allahabad as regards the petitioner.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the impugned order dated 14.9.2022 has been passed ex parte. The petitioner was not served any notice. The petitioner did not appear before the trial court and the order has been passed behind his back.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner is making a false statement. In fact, notice was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner had also engaged counsel Mr. Vishal Kumar Jaiswal on his behalf. Learned counsel for private respondent has filed certified copy of vakalatnama as well as application filed by Mr. Banshal, on behalf of the applicant, which is taken on record.
It is further submitted on behalf of private respondent that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy also. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied on judgment of Delhi High Court in Amit Sundra versus Sheetal Khanna 2007 LawSuit (Del) 977.
Mr. P.K. Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr.N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid facts as stated by learned counsel for respondent No.2.
In view of the above, the statement given by learned counsel for the petitioner that he did not appear before the trial court and the petitioner has not been served any notice appears to be incorrect and misleading, keeping in view the copy of the vakalanatma on behalf of the petitioner as also the application, aforesaid having been provided before the trial court, and certified copy whereof has been filed in this Court.
Besides the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under section 29 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, as also the misleading statement given by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy, with cost of Rs.2000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court.
Order Date :- 6.12.2022
kkb.
