Allahabad High Court
Manjeet Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:158004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3675 of 2024
Manjeet Kumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Onkar Nath
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Gaurav Sharma, Vijay Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present criminal revision may be disposed of finally without calling for any further affidavit in view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today.
3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2024 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Firozabad passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2024 (Manjeet Kumar & Others Vs. vs. Smt. Lalita) as well as the ex-parte judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad dated 27th May, 2022 passed in Case No. 3926 of 2019 (Lmt. Lalita vs. Manjeet Kumar and Ors) under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
4. By the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2024, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist, which has been filed against the ex-parte judgment and order dated 27th May, 2022 passed on an application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of D.V. Act, by which the trial court has allowed the said application with some directions which have been mentioned in the said judgment itself.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that though the service of notice has been served upon the revisionist but due to circumstances beyond the control of the revisionist he could not appear before the trial court due to which the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 27th May, 2022 has been passed by the trial court on an application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and the same illegality has also been committed by the appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by him against the said judgment, which is in violation of principle of natural justice. He, therefore, submits that in the interest of substantial justice, he may be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the D.V. Act so that the matter may be decided on merits.
6. For showing his bona fide, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed before this Court a photo stat copy of the payment receipt, of the order of the trial court in which it has been mentioned that in compliance of the ex-parte judgment and order of the trial court he had deposited Rs. 80,000/- before the concerned Court.
7. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the present criminal revision but they could not dispute that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is an ex-parte judgment and matter should have been decided on merits.
8. 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 both the impugned judgments.
9. It is not disputed between the parties that though the notice has served upon the revisionist but due to some reason he could not appear before the trial court to have his say in the proceedings under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the D.V., resultantly, the matter has been decided ex-parte.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the D.V. Act.
13. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2024 (Manjeet Kumar & Others Vs. Smt. Lalita) as well as the ex-parte judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad dated 27th May, 2022 passed in Case No. 3926 of 2019 (Lmt. Lalita vs. Manjeet Kumar and Ors) under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are set aside.
14. The revisionist is directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance awarded in favour of opposite party no.2 by the trial under the impugned ex-parte judgment 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 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 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. 20,000/- 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. The revisionist shall also pay Rs. 2000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards interim maintenance allowance in place of Rs. 4000/- per month as awarded under the impugned judgment till the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is finally decided.
15. 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 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the D.V. Act, which shall be decided afresh as directed by this Court herein above.
16. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 8, 2025
C. MANI
