Failure to adhere to the specific direction of the Supreme Court in a review petition can lead to the setting aside of the impugned order and remand of the matter for fresh consideration.

ORDER

Leave granted. By judgment dated 20.10.2016, the learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu, decreed the respondent-husband’s divorce case in File No.28/H.M.Act instituted on 19.04.2011 and dissolved his marriage with the appellant-wife. Aggrieved thereby, she filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.195/2016 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, as it is known presently. This appeal was allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated 02.09.2022. Thereupon the respondent filed Review Petition No.116/2022 seeking reconsideration. The High Court allowed the review petition by its order dated 24.02.2023 and reopened the case. The appellant assailed the said order before this Court in Civil Appeal No.3391/2023. The said appeal was disposed of on 04.05.2023, directing the High Court to hear the review Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2024.02.13 17:10:19 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified petition on its own merits and to decide the same as early as possible in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the order dated 24.02.2023. This Court further observed that the question as to whether the appeal should be heard on merits would depend upon the final outcome of the review petition. Pursuant to the aforestated order, a learned Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu passed order dated 16.09.2023. Thereby, the learned Judge disposed of the review petition holding that the appeal required to be heard on merits. It is this order which is subjected to challenge before us presently. Perusal of the impugned order reflects that the learned Judge, despite noting the observations made by this Court while disposing of the earlier Civil Appeal No.3391/2023 on 04.05.2023, relied upon the earlier order dated 24.02.2023. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order are relevant in this regard and they read as under: - “6. The perusal of the order dated 24.02.2023 reveals that the preliminary contention raised by the respondent in the review petition has been decided and the context of the order reveals that the objection having been raised by the respondent therein stood decided against her. What is then required to be decided is the issue of cruelty as framed by the trial court in the divorce petition instead of deciding the aspect of adultery as discussed by this Court while passing the judgment in appeal.

7. The perusal of the written submissions made on behalf of the respondent-Rakhee Sharma which again refers to the applicability of Rule 10 of 1970 Rules in the divorce petition filed by the petitioner-Amit Sharma which has been decided by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2023 cannot be re-opened though mentioned as tentative in written submissions by the respondent- Rakhee Sharma, as the same has attained finality qua the aforesaid order. The court otherwise finds no reason to differ from the opinion given by Court on aforesaid aspect. In the aforesaid scenario the appeal is to be decided on the issue framed by the trial court qua the aspect of cruelty which has been decided against the respondent in review petition. Order dated 24.02.2023 clearly mentions that the court has held that there is error apparent on the face of record. It is in the light of the aforesaid position that the appeal on merits sans the argument raised qua the applicability of Rule 10 of 1970 Rules framed under the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to be heard. “ The aforestated observations made by the learned Judge clearly manifest that the specific direction of this Court that the review petition should be heard on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made in the earlier order dated 24.02.2023, has not been adhered to. In that view of the matter, we are constrained to set aside the i