Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5525 of 2024
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Learned counsel for the revisionist is permitted to amend the prayer clause during the course of the day.
2. Heard Rajan Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State.
3. Initially this criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC Court No. 1, District Baghpat, in Criminal Misc. Appeal No.211 of 2024 (Arvind Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also the ex-parte judgment and order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Magistrate, Gram Nyaylaya, Tehsil Baraut, District- Baghpat in Complaint Case No. 57 of 2022 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has also been challenged.
4. By the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 22.11.2022, the Magistrate, Gram Nyaylaya, Tehsil Baraut, District- Baghpat has allowed the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 12 of D.V. Act, directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 5000/- per month for separate living and Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 along with his daughter towards maintenance allowance on tenth of each calendar month from the date of filing of the application. Against the said ex-parte judgment and order, the revisionist filed an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act before the Additional Sessions Judge for recall of the ex-parte judgment and order but the said appeal has also been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 26.9.2024. Hence the present criminal revision.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Magistrate, Gram Nyaylaya, Tehsil Baraut, District- Baghpat without giving any affording opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that in the proceedings under Section 29 of the D.V. Act also, the Additional Sessions Judge has committed the same error in rejecting the appeal of the revisionist for recall of the ex-parte judgment. 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 12 of the D.V. Act so that the matter may be decided on merits.
6. Besides the above, learned counsel for the revisionist states that if the ex-parte judgment and order passed by the trial court is set aside and till the application under Section 12 of D.V. Act is finally decided afresh on merits after affording one more opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, he is ready to pay some amount i.e. Rs. 75,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance and Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 regularly towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment and order.
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 the judgment and order dated 22.11.2022 is ex-parte and the same has not been decided after hearing the revisionist or his counsel.
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 12 of D.V. Act.
13. Consequently, the judgment and judgment and order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC Court No. 1, District Baghpat, in Criminal Misc. Appeal No.211 of 2024 (Arvind Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the ex-parte judgment and order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Magistrate, Gram Nyaylaya, Tehsil Baraut, District- Baghpat in Complaint Case No. 57 of 2022 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are set aside.
14. The revisionist is directed to deposit Rs. 75,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance awarded in favour of opposite party no.2 before the trial court 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 12 of D.V. Act. afresh, in accordance with law and the guidelines as framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 12, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with a receipt of deposit of Rs. 75,000/- 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. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment till the application under Section 12 of D.V. Act. 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 12 of 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.
September 10, 2025
Akbar
