Mukesh Tyagi Alias Banti and 4 Others Vs State 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.

¶5

Court No. - 86

¶6

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶7

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

¶8

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).

¶9

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

¶10

CRLR No. 1894 of 2024

¶11

2

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

CRLR No. 1894 of 2024

¶15

3

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

The revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶20

March 19, 2026 Faridul

¶21

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

Mukesh Tyagi Alias Banti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Tyagi Alias Banti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devpratap @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Shri Lalit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Vaseem and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Ritu Rai vs State of U.P. and Another

Aslam vs State of U.P.