Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135982 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5665 of 2023 Revisionist :- Smt. Archna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Barmeshwar Nath Tiwari,Parijat Kumar Tiwari,Venu Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandrajeet,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State- respondent. None is present on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 even in the revised call. 2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 28.7.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-1, Hapur in Crl. Appeal No. 27 of 2021, Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another u/s 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 arising out of Complaint case No. 18 of 2020 Smt. Archana Vs. Pramod and others u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S.-Kotwali, District Hapur, during the pendency of instant revision before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that revisionist is the wife of opposite party no. 2 and she filed application u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act against him which was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15.3.2021. 4. He next submitted that however, against the order dated 15.3.2021 passed under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act opposite party no. 2 preferred a criminal appeal before sessions court under section 29 of Domestic Violence Act but he preferred criminal appeal on 27.7.2021 which was beyond time. 5. He next submitted that as per section 29 of Domestic Violence Act against an order made by the Magistrate an appeal is maintainable within 30 days. 6. He next submitted that however, appeal was beyond time but in spite of that no delay condonation application has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 and however, revisionist in her objection raised this issue but in spite of that without touching this fact lower appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party no. 2 and set aside the order dated 15.3.2021 passed by the Magistrate concerned. 7. He next submitted that order dated 28.7.2023 passed by the appellate court is wholly illegal and appellate court without condoning the delay in filing the appeal allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party no. 2 and therefore, order dated 28.7.2023 is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned order dated 28.7.2023 by which appeal filed by opposite party no. 2 has been allowed is a well reasoned order but he could not dispute the fact that appeal filed by opposite party no. 2 was beyond time and it was time barred but inspite of that without condoning delay lower appellate court entertained the appeal filed by opposite party no. 2. 9. He further submitted that therefore, instant matter may be remitted back with a direction to the appellate court to decide the appeal filed by opposite party no. 2 after considering the fact that it is beyond time. 10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. Revisionist is wife of the opposite party no. 2 and she filed an application u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act against him which was allowed vide order dated 15.3.2021 and it appears against the order dated 15.3.2021 passed by the magistrate concerned u/s 12 Domestic Violence Act opposite party no. 2 preferred an appeal before sessions court under section 29 of Domestic Violence Act which was allowed by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 28.7.2023 but it reflects that opposite party no. 2 filed the appeal beyond time and opposite party no. 2 did not even file any delay condonation application. 12. As per section 29 Domestic Violence Act against an order passed by magistrate concerned within 30 days, an appeal is maintainable and admittedly opposite party no. 2 filed an appeal beyond 30 days and from the record it reflects, when revisionist appeared before the appellate court then she specifically raised this objection but from the impugned order dated 28.7.2023 it reflects that without considering this fact after touching merit of the case, the appeal filed by opposite party no. 2 was allowed by the appellate court and therefore, it appears appellate court while passing order dated 28.7.2023 committed gross illegality. 13. Further, it also reflects while filing appeal which was beyond time opposite party no. 2 did not even file any delay condonation application and appellate court did not even notice this fact. 14. Law is settled that if an appeal is time barred then without condoning delay it cannot be heard and decided on merit. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, impugned order dated 28.7.2025 passed by appellate court is illegal and is, therefore, hereby set aside. 16. The instant revision stands allowed, accordingly. 17. Matter is remitted back to the appellate court with a direction that appellate court shall decide the appeal afresh after considering the fact that it is beyond time. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad