MUKESH TYAGI ALIAS BANTI AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1894 of 2024

Mukesh Tyagi Alias Banti And 4 Others
                                                         .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                 :   Yogesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A.

Court No. - 86
                    HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 16.8.2022
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2,
Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 267 of 2021 (Smt. Pooja vs. Mukesh
Tyagi alias Banti and others), under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015, by which the learned
Magistrate has awarded a sum of Rs. 3000/- in lieu of the accommodation
and a sum of Rs. 4000/- to be paid to opposite party no. 2 as monthly
maintenance. Besides, that one time payment of Rs. 10,000/- was also
provided to be paid to opposite party no. 2 (herein).

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.2022, the revisionist (herein) filed
an Appeal No. 149 of 2022 and submitted that the revisionist was not at
all aware of any pendency of the case in respect of Domestic Violence
Act and further submitted that the learned Magistrate had presumed the
service of notice to be effected on the basis of a report of the Postal
Department, however the revisionist denied the receipt of the said postal
letter. Conversely, it was submitted that opposite party No. 2, who was
residing away from the revisionist had obtained an order from the
concerned Magistrate and intended to have it executed at the earliest, and
therefore, the revisionist became instrumental in these proceedings by
filing the aforesaid Appeal No. 149/2022 and handed over the relevant
documents to his counsel on 24.9.2022. He further submitted that the
                                                        CRLR No. 1894 of 2024
                               2


opposite party no. 2, who was residing away from the matrimonial home
did not receive the speed post, this speed post had been dispatched to the
revisionist by the Postal Department. A report was received from the
counter in this regard and on the basis of the said report, the service upon
revisionist was presumed to be complete. He further submitted that when
the order dated 16.08.2022 was passed by the learned Magistrate, the
revisionist was not afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard; and
further submitted that the facts and records pertaining to the revisionist's
income were not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate, nor,
subsequently, by the Appellate Court and prayed that both the orders
dated 16.8.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court no. 2, Ghaziabad and 14.3.2024 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court no. 10, Ghaziabad are liable to be quashed and set
aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that on the basis of the report
of the Postal Department, the service of notice upon the revisionist was
deemed to be complete. This procedure has been devised and developed
by the Postal Department itself to ascertain the current status of any letter
dispatched by an individual, specifically, whether it has been delivered or
returned. Full details regarding postal memos are displayed on the internet
as well as on the Postal Department's Website, therefore, the claim of the
revisionist that he did not receive the postal communication is totally false
and baseless. Furthermore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for
the revisionist was not heard and the order had been passed by the learned
Magistrate in his absence, and that he initially disregarded this
information is nothing more than a standard excuse and cannot be
accepted in the eyes of the law. Secondly, insofar as the source of income
and other factual aspects are concerned, the revisionists themselves had
filed an appeal and taken all such grounds available to them under the
law, including those pertaining to the revisionist's income and sources of
income. Subsequently, after due consideration of the matter, the learned
Appellate Court passed an order. Therefore, the revisionist's contention
that he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard with respect to the
order passed on 14.3.2022 is totally false and baseless, given that the said
appeal was filed at the specific instance of the revisionists themselves.
The revisionists were at liberty to raise all grounds available under the
                                                                                             CRLR No. 1894 of 2024
                                                                    3


                                    law and, indeed, they raised all such grounds and a detailed and speaking
                                    order was passed in that appeal. Accordingly, it is prayed that the instant
                                    revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

                                    5. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact and after going
                                    through the order dated 16.8.2024 passed by the learned Judicial
                                    Magistrate, as well as the order dated 14.3.2024 passed by the learned
                                    Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 10, Ghaziabad, the Court has come
                                    to the conclusion that, insofar as the order dated 16.8.2022 is concerned,
                                    the revisionist did not participate in the said proceedings before the
                                    learned Magistrate, despite service upon the revision, and therefore, the
                                    revisionist cannot take plea of no fault, as they preferred not to participate
                                    in the proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
                                    However, once the order dated 16.8.2022 was passed, the revisionist
                                    became extremely vigilant and cautious, and immediately proceeded to
                                    pursue the matter through legal course, so far as to hand over the relevant
                                    documents to their learned counsel on 15.9.2022. Based on their
                                    assessment and apprehension, it appears that they received an application
                                    from opposite party no. 2, which seems illogical and devoid of any
                                    justification whatsoever. The orders passed by the learned Additional
                                    Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 10,
                                    Ghaziabad appear to be in accordance with the law. No illegality or
                                    infirmity has been found in the said orders, consequently, calls for no
                                    interference by this Court.

                                    6. The revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.



                                                                                               (Harvir Singh,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Faridul




Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad