Gaurav Sharma and Others v. Smt Neha Jha) as well as the ex-parte judgment and order passed by the

1. Heard Mr. Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Sri Shiv Shankar Kaithal, 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 08th May, 2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2024 (Gaurav Sharma and Others Vs. Smt Neha Jha) as well as the ex-parte judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Judicdial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad, dated 07.01.2024 passed in Case No. 2166 of 2021 (Smt. Neha Jha vs. Gaurav Sharma and Ors) under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the "D.V. Act").

4. By the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2024, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist, which has been filed against the ex-parte judgment and order dated 07.01.2024 passed on an application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the "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. 2 CRLR No. 4104 of 2024

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 07.01.2024 has been passed by the trial court on an application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 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 and 22 of the D.V. Act so that the matter may be decided on merits.

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 and 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. 3 CRLR No. 4104 of 2024

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 and 22 of the D.V. Act.

13. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 08th May, 2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2024 (Gaurav Sharma and Others Vs. Smt Neha Jha) as well as the ex-parte judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Judicdial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad, dated 07.01.2024 passed in Case No. 2166 of 2021 (Smt. Neha Jha vs. Gaurav Sharma and Ors) under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are set aside.

14. The revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 2500/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance to the opposite party no.2 in place of Rs. 5000/- as awarded by the trial court and also deposit Rs. 25,000/- 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 and 22 of the D.V. Act fresh, 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.

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 and 22 of the D.V. Act, which shall be decided afresh as directed by this Court herein above.

16. However, it is provided that if the amount, as directed above, is not deposited by the revisionist within the aforesaid period, the protection granted to him shall automatically stand vacated and the instant criminal revisionist shall be decided on merits, without any further reference to the Court.

17. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and 4 CRLR No. 4104 of 2024 directions made above. September 19, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Sri Shiv Shankar Kaithal, 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 08th May, 2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2024 (Gaurav Sharma and Others Vs. Smt Neha Jha) as well as the ex-parte judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Judicdial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad, dated 07.01.2024 passed in Case No. 2166 of 2021 (Smt. Neha Jha vs. Gaurav Sharma and Ors) under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the "D.V. Act").

4. By the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2024, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist, which has been filed against the ex-parte judgment and order dated 07.01.2024 passed on an application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the "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. 2 CRLR No. 4104 of 2024

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 07.01.2024 has been passed by the trial court on an application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 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 and 22 of the D.V. Act so that the matter may be decided on merits.

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 and 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. 3 CRLR No. 4104 of 2024

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 and 22 of the D.V. Act.

13. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 08th May, 2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2024 (Gaurav Sharma and Others Vs. Smt Neha Jha) as well as the ex-parte judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Judicdial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad, dated 07.01.2024 passed in Case No. 2166 of 2021 (Smt. Neha Jha vs. Gaurav Sharma and Ors) under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are set aside.

14. The revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 2500/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance to the opposite party no.2 in place of Rs. 5000/- as awarded by the trial court and also deposit Rs. 25,000/- 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 and 22 of the D.V. Act fresh, 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.

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 and 22 of the D.V. Act, which shall be decided afresh as directed by this Court herein above.

16. However, it is provided that if the amount, as directed above, is not deposited by the revisionist within the aforesaid period, the protection granted to him shall automatically stand vacated and the instant criminal revisionist shall be decided on merits, without any further reference to the Court.

17. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and 4 CRLR No. 4104 of 2024 directions made above. September 19, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad