JUDGMENT :

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) :

1. The instant revision case is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Baruipur, South 24 parganas in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2016. By dint of the same learned Trial Court has modified the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas in M.P Case No.21 of 2012 and T.R Case No. 208 of 2012 to the effect that in place and stead of paying a sum of Rs.10,000/-as maintenance per month along with a further sum of Rs. 10,000/-p.m. as medical expenditure, the present opposite party would only require to pay the maintenance amount as directed and not the monthly medical expenditure.

2. Bereft of any unnecessary details the factual background necessary to be dealt with in this revision may be narrated that the petitioner is the wife of opposite party and they were married on 10.07.1985. Their marriage was registered as per provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954. However the parties could not lead a peaceful conjugal life and the petitioner filed in the Trial Court her application/case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, being registered as M.P Case No.21 of 2012. The said M.P Case No.21 of 2012 ended in the judgment by the learned Magistrate dated 24.10.2016, by dint of which the opposite party/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10, 000/-per month to the petitioner towards her maintenance and also a further sum of Rs.10, 000/-per month for medical expenditure of the petitioner who has been suffering with the terminal decease like cancer.

3. The present opposite party was aggrieved by such judgment and order dated 24.10.2016 of the Magistrate and challenged the same in an appeal in the court of Addition District and Sessions Judge, Baruipur, South 24 Paraganas being Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2016.

4. Petitioner in this revision has put forth her specific ground regarding her grievance as to the way the appeal proceeded in the court and according to her, her vital rights to defend the case has been jeopardised and also her right to be heard has been prejudiced, insofar as the court while passing the judgment under challenge in this revision has proceeded without knowledge of the petitioner and also without giving her an opportunity of being heard.

5. Certified copy of the order sheets of the learned Trial Court of the Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2016 have been referred, from which it transpires that the learned Trial Court on 03.12.2019 has recorded appearance of the parties and fixed a date for hearing of the case on 13.01.2020. On 13.01.2020 again the appearance of the parties was noted and the date was fixed on 05.03.2020 for hearing the appeal and filing written argument. It is shown from the order dated 05.03.2020 that the court has again recorded the appearance of the parties and fixed another date on 18.04.2020 for the same purpose. However, from the order dated 18.04.2020/30.07.2020, it transpires that the Ld. Trial Court has taken up the record and fixed a date, that is, 19.08.2020 for delivering judgment. It appears from the said order sheets that during the period from 05.03.2020 to the date of that order, the case record could not be taken up by the court as per schedule, due to the suspension of work in court at the wake of the pandemic due to spared of Corona Virus. Ultimately judgment was pronounced by the Trial Court on 29.09.2020. It is found from the certified copy of the order sheets that though the court earlier noted the case to be fixed for hearing of appeal and submission of written argument by the parties, ultimately before delivering judgment, neither presence of any of the parties was noted by the Trial Court nor the fact that any of the parties could file their written notes of arguments before the court as was directed earlier.

6. In the judgment as impugned the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal of the