Skip to content


Chakareshwar Nath JaIn Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal Nos. 35-37 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC2009; 1981CriLJ1690; 1981(Supp)SCC11
AppellantChakareshwar Nath Jain
RespondentState of Uttar Pradesh
Excerpt:
.....reasonable cause. the petitioner must also prove that there was desertion throughout the statutory period and there was no bona fide attempt on the respondent's part to return to the matrimonial home and that the petitioner did not by his or her action by word or conduct provide a just cause to the other spouse to desist from, making any attempt at reconciliation or resuming cohabitation; -but where, however, on the facts it is clear that the conduct of the deserted spouse has had no such effect on the mind of the deserting spouse there is no rule of law that desertion ter- minates by reason of the conduct of the deserted spouse. an offer to return to the matrimonial home after sometime, though desertion had started, if genuine and sincere and represented his or her true feelings and..........be taken up for hearing on any day during this period. unfortunately, due to some oversight the revision application of the appellant in which mr. s. n. aggarwal was appearing as advocate was taken up for hearing on 29th may, 1978 and despite the absence of mr. s. n. aggarwal, it was heard ex parte and dismissed on merits. it is obvious that the revision application should not have been taken up for hearing on 29th may, 1978 when the learned chief justice had adjourned the cases of mr. s. n. aggarwal and had directed that they should not be placed for hearing during the period 29th may, 1978 to 9th july, 1978. the order disposing of the revision application of the appellant ex parte must, therefore, be set aside and the revision application must be remanded to the high court for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.N. Bhagwati, J.

1. It appears from para 7 of the petition for Special Leave which has not been controverted on behalf of the respondent, that the learned Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court had adjourned the cases in which Mr. S. N. Aggarwal was appearing as advocate for the period 29th May, 1978 to 9th July, 1978 and, therefore, he was under the impression that his cases would not be taken up for hearing on any day during this period. Unfortunately, due to some oversight the revision application of the appellant in which Mr. S. N. Aggarwal was appearing as advocate was taken up for hearing on 29th May, 1978 and despite the absence of Mr. S. N. Aggarwal, it was heard ex parte and dismissed on merits. It is obvious that the revision application should not have been taken up for hearing on 29th May, 1978 when the learned Chief Justice had adjourned the cases of Mr. S. N. Aggarwal and had directed that they should not be placed for hearing during the period 29th May, 1978 to 9th July, 1978. The order disposing of the revision application of the appellant ex parte must, therefore, be set aside and the revision application must be remanded to the High Court for disposal according to law.

2. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court dismissing the revision application of the appellant and direct that the revision application may be heard by the High Court in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the appellant of being heard. It would be preferable if the revision application is heard by a learned Judge other than the one who disposed of the revision application.

3. The bail already granted will continue for a period of three weeks within which it will be open to the appellant to apply for bail to the High Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //