Y. MEERA BAI Vs. G. VENKAT GIRI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the wife under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling the order dtd. 30/4/2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.575 of 2015 (Annexure P1).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Petitioner is wife of the Respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 11/10/2011. The Petitioner/wife filed an application under Sec. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vide order dtd. 6/6/2015, the Family Court, Durg in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.419 of 2014 allowed the application of the Petitioner/wife and granted her monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000..00 Against the said order of the Family Court, a revision, being Criminal Revision No.575 of 2015 was preferred by the Respondent/husband. After receipt of a notice of the revision, Counsel for the Petitioner/wife filed vakalatnama on 12/8/2015. The matter was fixed for final hearing in the weekly list of 4/2/2019 (Annexure P2). The matter was listed for final disposal/final hearing at item No.27, list-2 before this Court. Since the name of the Counsel for the Petitioner/wife did not appear in the said cause list, the Petitioner/wife's Counsel did not appear before the Court when the matter was called for final hearing. Hence, the matter was heard without any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner/wife and ex parte order was passed by this Court in the revision on 30/4/2019 (Annexure P1).

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/wife submitted that while passing the impugned order dtd. 30/4/2019, this Court has especially stated in paragraph 5 that none appeared for the wife despite the matter was called out for hearing twice being unaware of the fact that the name of the Counsel for the Petitioner/ wife neither reflected in the cause list for 4/2/2019 nor was any message regarding the same received by the Counsel. Hence, the Petitioner/wife did not get an opportunity to present her case through her Counsel before this Court. Since no opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioner/wife and her Counsel was unaware of the date of hearing of the revision, none could appear on behalf of the wife and the revision was heard ex parte. Therefore, a prejudice is caused to the Petitioner/wife. Thus, it is prayed by Learned Senior Counsel that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be afforded to the Petitioner/wife and the impugned order dtd. 30/4/2019 be recalled. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396 and Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria, S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9313 of 2021 order dtd. 7/3/2022.