Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Anwar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 April, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:59365 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1010 of 2023 Revisionist :- Mohammad Anwar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party 1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Present Criminal Revision came up for admission on 08.12.2023 and this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf opposite party no.1. Issue notice to opposite party no.2. Steps be taken within a week by registered post. Put up as fresh on 8.1.2024"
4. Office has submitted a report dated 09.01.2024 stating therein that notice issued to opposite party-2 has been served personally. However, in spite of service of notice, neither any counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party-2 nor anyone has appeared on her behalf to oppose this criminal revision.
5. This criminal revision is directed against the ex-parte order dated 06.12.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 61 of 2021 (Smt. Anjum @ Gudiya Vs. Mohammad Anwar and Others), under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station-Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur, whereby the Trial Court has allowed aforementioned criminal case, and awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation, Rs. 1,000/- towards the rent of tenanted premise and Rs. 4,000/- towards monthly maintenance in favour of opposite party-2 and further restrained the opposite parties therein from causing any domestic violence or physical cruelty upon opposite party-2 as well as the judgment and order dated 05.01.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2021 (Mohammad Anwar and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another), whereby aforementioned criminal appeal preferred by the revisionists against order dated 06.12.2021 has also been dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for revisionists contends that the orders impugned in present criminal revision are manifestly illegal, unjust and arbitrary. Consequently, the same are liable to be set aside by this Court.
7. It is then contended that revisionists could not appear before the Trial Court on account of the pandemic Covid-19. As such, an ex-parte order was passed by the Trial Court against revisionists, the Appellate Court, without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has dismissed the appeal. According to the learned counsel for revisionists, a judgment after hearing the parties is far, far better than a judgment ex-parte. It is lastly submitted that revisionist-1, Mohammad Anwar, who is the husband of opposite party-2 is working as a labourer and therefore, with great difficulty, he is able to earn Rs. 4,500/- per month. On the above premise, what is sought to be urged before this Court is that the amount of maintenance awarded by court below is not only irrational, harsh but also excessive inasmuch as, the Trial Court has not been prudent enough to consider the condition of revisionist-1. According to the learned counsel for revisionists, Courts while awarding maintenance in favour of claimants under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are bound to consider the liability and obligation of opposite party also. However, no such exercise has been undertaken by Court below while quantifying the amount of maintenance payable by revisionist-1. As such, the order impugned passed by Trial Court is wholly arbitrary. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by revisionists by simply passing an order of affirmance without adverting to the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case. As such, the Appellate Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for revisionists submits that the orders impugned in present criminal revision cannot be sustained and are, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this criminal revision. He submits that orders impugned in present criminal revision are perfectly just and legal. It is an undisputed fact that revisionist-1, Mohd. Anwar is the husband of opposite party-2. Proceedings under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were initiated by opposite party-2 against the revisionists on the ground that domestic violence was committed upon her and she has been ignored by her husband. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. Courts below have recorded concurrent and cogent findings that opposite party-2 is the wife of revisionist-1 and domestic violence was committed upon her. Findings returned by Courts below are cogent findings of fact, which cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous nor could they be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionists. It is well settled that if the findings cannot be dislodged, the conclusion cannot be altered. Learned A.G.A. thus contends that no interference is warranted by this Court in present criminal revision.
9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionists could not overcome the same.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionists, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present criminal revision could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionists. Moreover, from the perusal of impugned order, it cannot be said that Courts below have exercised their jurisdiction with material irregularity or have committed a jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned. As such, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to entertain the present criminal revision.
11. In view of the discussion made above, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
12. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.4.2024 Vinay