Shanti Swaroop Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6762 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shanti Swaroop Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143133
 
Court No. - 91
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 330 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Shanti Swaroop Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Lalji Chaudhary,Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amlendu Maya Shukla,G.A.,Janeshwar Mishra Bankata,Krishna Kumar Shukla,Shrish Chandra,Suraj Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Amlendu Maya Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the order dated 8th November, 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Room No.2, Prayagraj in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2023 (Shanti Swaroop Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Another) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the "D.V. Act"), the order dated 8th July, 2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.10, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 347 of 2021 (Dr. Suman Shukla Vs. Shanti Swaroop Sharma & Others) under Section 23 of the D.V. Act and also the attachment order dated 3rd October, 2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No. 21, Prayagraj in complaint case no. 347 of 2021 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 11th July, 2019 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. No child was born from the aforesaid wedlock. After some time of aforesaid marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife i.e. revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Consequently, the revisionist filed Suit No. 891 of 2021 (Shanti Swaroop Sharma Vs. Dr. Suman Shukla) under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad on 28th September, 2020. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report on 30th May, 2021 against the revisionist and his family members, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0127 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 313, 377, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Whereafter, opposite party no.2 filed a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act against the revisionist which was registered as Complaint Case No. 347 of 2021 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Allahabad on 25th June, 2021.The District Probation Officer, Prayagraj on 28th August, 2021 issued a notice to the revisionist about the said case and the revisionist inturn has submitted his affidavit on 1st September, 2021 before the District Probation Officer, who inturn submitted his report along with the affidavit of the revisionist on 20th October, 2021. On 25th April, 2022 opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 23 of the D.V. Act before the court below for interim maintenance in Complaint Case No. 347 of 2021 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 10, Allahabad has passed the ex parte order dated 8th July, 2022 in Complaint Case No. 347 of 2021 (Dr. Suman Shukla Vs. Shanti Swaroop Sharma & Others), directing the revisionist to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance. Feeling aggrieved by the said ex parte impugned order dated 8th July, 2022, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. Nill of 2022 (Shanti Swaroop Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Another) under Section 29 of the D.V. Act., which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2023. The Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Room No. 2, Prayagraj vide order dated 8th November, 2023 dismissed the said appeal filed by the revisionist while confirming the ex-parte order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 8th July, 2022. After that, opposite party no.2 submitted an application on 5th December, 2022 in Complaint Case No. 347 of 2022 praying for recovery warrant against the revisionist in compliance of ex-parte order dated 8th July, 2022, wherein the revisionist filed his objection on 5th January, 2023. The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Room No. 21, Prayagraj passed the attachment order dated 3rd October, 2023 in complaint case no. 347 of 2021 under Section 12 of D.V. Act. Hence the present criminal revision.

4. It is also cropped up from the records of the present criminal revision that opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which came to be registered as Case No. 1145 of 2022 (Dr. Suman Shukla Vs. Shanti Swaroop Sharma) against the revisionist for maintenance allowance, which is still pending consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that opposite party no.2 has the degrees of B.Ed., M.Ed. and P.Hd. and she initially joined as Assistant Professor in Shambhu Nath Group of Institutions at Prayagraj and she is fully capable to maintain herself. However, neither the trial court nor the appellate court has recorded any finding with regard to the fact that opposite party no.2 was unable to be maintain herself despite the fact that she is a scholar and P.Hd. holder. Therefore, both the orders passed by the courts below are illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.10, Allahabad has passed the ex-parte order dated 8th July, 2022 in complaint case no. 347 of 2021 without notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, as such, the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In the order itself, there is no mention as to when notice was issued to the revisionist and also on which and how such notice was served upon him. Only the report of District Probation Officer and the objection filed by the revisionist before the District Probation Officer had been mentioned in the ex-party impugned order. It is next submitted that in the report of the District Probation Officer, wrong fact has been mentioned about the character of opposite party no.2 and her daughter, when as matter of fact no child was borne from the wedlock of the revisionist and opposite party no.2. On the basis of false report of the District Probation Officer dated 20th October, 2021, the impugned ex-party order has been passed by the trial court on 8th July, 2022 directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance. It is lastly submitted that in the affidavit filed before the trial court in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, opposite party no.2 has not disclosed the fact of filing of suit under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the revisionist which was numbered as Case No. 891 of 2020, which is a material concealment. He, therefore, submits that it is settled law that a person who has not approached the Court with clean hands, is not entitled to any relief.

6. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order dated 8th July, 2022 passed in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the same cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the above submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court as well as in the appellate court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under the revisional jurisdiction.

8. Apart from the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that at the time of marriage the revisionist was unemployed and after some time when he got government service as Assistant Teacher, his behaviour with his wife i.e. opposite party no.2 was changed and consequently, he started to torture and harass her physically and mentally and without any reason he filed Suit No. 891 of 2020 under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation. It is further submitted that when revisionist and his family members did not stop to torture and harass opposite party no.2 for additional demand of dowry, she lodged a first information report being Case Crime No. 0127 of 2021 against them. Thereafter she filed Complaint Case No. 347 of 2021 under Section 12 of the D.V.Act. The revisionist was received notice dated 25th August, 2021 from the District Probation Officer on 28th August, 2021 and he had be acknowledged about the above complaint case against him by his wife because after obtaining the notice, the revisionist submitted his affidavit on 1st September, 2021 before the District Probation Officer.

9. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that after submission of the report of the District Probation Officer, the trial court has passed the impugned order dated 8th July, 2022 directing the revisionist to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance.

10. It is then submitted that the revisionist was present along with his counsel on 21st September, 2022 before the trial court and prayed for filing of objection which was granted by the court and time was granted till 15th October, 2022 but the revisionist instead of filing his objection, filed an appeal against the order dated 8th July, 2022, which was dismissed by the appellate Court. It is also stated that since the revisionist has not paid arrears of maintenance allowance, the court below has passed the attachment order dated 3rd October, 2023.

11. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision including the impugned orders.

13. From the order impugned dated 8th July, 2022 by which the trial court has awarded maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month, it transpires that before passing the same, the revisionist had been issued notice and afforded opportunity of hearing to him or his counsel. In the said order, the report of the District Probation Officer and the objection filed by the revisionist have been mentioned only, meaning thereby that the same being ex-parte order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Such fact has also not been considered by the appellate court while passing the impugned order dismissing the appeal filed by the revisionist.

14. It is settled law that every order passed, which results in evil civil consequence to a party, must be consistent with the rules of principles of natural justice, failing which the same would be unsustainable in the eyes of law.

15. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi- judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.

16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist should be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.

17. Consequently, the order dated 8th November, 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Room No.2, Prayagraj in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2023 (Shanti Swaroop Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Another) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the "D.V. Act"), the order dated 8th July, 2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.10, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 347 of 2021 (Dr. Suman Shukla Vs. Shanti Swaroop Sharma & Others) under Section 23 of the D.V. Act and also the attachment order dated 3rd October, 2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No. 21, Prayagraj in complaint case no. 347 of 2021 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are set aside.

18. The revisionist is directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance awarded in favour of opposite party no.2 by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte order along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. Thereafter the trial court shall consider and decide the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act afresh, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with a receipt of deposit of Rs. 25,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance by the revisionist, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

19. It is also clarified that the total amount of arrears as deposited by the revisionist before the trial court in favour of opposite party no.2 shall be subject to final outcome of the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, which shall be decided afresh as directed by this Court herein above.

20. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above.

21. Written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for opposite party are taken on record.

(Madan Pal Singh, J.)

Order Date :- 20.8.2025

Sushil/-