2025:UHC:6258 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.961 of 2024 15th July, 2025 Anurag Badola ……….Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. and Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this criminal revision the revisionist is seeking setting aside of ex-parte judgment and order dated 22.07.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Haridwar in Misc. Case No.9 of 2021, Smt. Santosh Rani Vs. Anurag Badola and others as well as a judgment and order dated 24.11.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Haridwar in Misc Case No.11 of 2023, Anurag Badola Vs. Smt. Santosh Rani and the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Session judge IIIrd Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2024, Anurag Badola Vs. Smt. Santosh Rani and another. 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that vide order dated 22.07.2022, an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by respondent no 2 was ex-parte allowed by giving the right of residence and with the direction to the revisionist to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance and thereafter vide order dated 23.09.2024 an application to recall the aforesaid order was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Haridwar and vide order dated 23.09.2024 the appeal against the said order was also dismissed by learned Additional Session Judge IIIrd Haridwar. 1 2025:UHC:6258 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below are not in consonance with the averments made by the revisionist. He further submits that both the court below has upheld the ex-parte judgment on the grounds that inspite of revoking the earlier ex-parte proceedings and even after giving a fresh chance to the revisionist, the revisionist did not turn up and only partly cross examined the respondent no.2. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argues that he is being punished for no fault of his own as the lapse was caused because he could not contact his counsel and also because he was suffering from financial loss and mental anguish which is a totally bona- fide reason. He further submits that the learned courts below have erred in not giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist by upholding the ex-parte order. He also submits that the respondent no.2 is not entitled to maintenance as she has been already awarded maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and thus she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of records this court is of the opinion that as this Court is sitting in revisional jurisdiction it is only empowered to look into the correctness legality and propriety of the judgments passed by the courts below. This Court after going through the judgments passed by the lower courts and the reasoning given is of the considered opinion that the courts below have committed no irregularity or illegality by passing an ex-parte order as sufficient opportunity was given to the revisionist by the courts below. The arguments of the learned counsel regarding the fact that the respondent no.2 cannot claim 2 2025:UHC:6258 maintenance both under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 fails to impress the Court as that both the remedies are mutually exclusive and availing of one remedy does not bar the other. 6. Accordingly the criminal revision being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 15.07.2025 R.Dang 3