- (1.) Criminal Misc. (Restoration) Application No. 45646 of 2000 has been made by the applicant/revisionist Shakil Ahmad for recall of order dated 28-4-2000 rejecting the first recall application No. 69044 of 1999. He is the husband and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are admittedly his wife and minor daughter respectively.
(2.) Relevant facts may be stated briefly for proper appreciation. The wife and minor daughter of the applicant/revisionist made an application against him under S. 125 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance which was allowed by the Principal Judge of Family Court, Kanpur Nagar on 9-2-1996 directing the payment of Rs. 300.00 per month as maintenance allowance to the wife and Rs. 200.00 per month as maintenance allowance to the daughter from the date of judgment i.e. 9-2-1996. The applicant/husband made an application under S. 126(2) of the Cr. P.C. (case No. 243 of 1998) for recall of the said order dated 9-2-1996 granting maintenance allowance, inter alia, stating that it was an ex parte order. On merits, the Court below rejected the said restoration application which was barred by time by 13 months without even making an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. He preferred the present revision against the said order dated 9-2-1996 which was not admitted and a notice was directed to be issued under order dated 18-11-1998. The recovery proceedings against the revisionist/husband were stayed for a specified period. Wife filed her counter affidavit opposing the stay application averring, amongst other grounds, that despite knowledge of the proceedings under S. 125 of the Cr. P.C., her husband simply lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other, avoiding appearance in the Court and he intentionally and wilfully refused to receive the notice of the same. It was also alleged by her that he had married second time with one Sona daughter of Nawab Ali in 1995 and one daughter had also been born from such wedlock. On the date of listing, the revisionist/husband did not appear. The revision was dismissed on 1-9-1999 in the presence of A.G.A. and the counsel for respondentNos. 2 and 3. The reason for the dismissal was that none appeared to press for the admission of revision. The stay order was vacated.
(3.) Thereafter, the revisionist made restoration application No. 69044 of 1999 through counsel Sri R. D. Mishra. None appeared for him at the hearing of the restoration application too on 28-4-2000 when A.G.A. and the counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were present. This recall application resulted in rejection. Now again, another restoration application No. 45646 of 2000, which is presently under decision, has been made for the recall of the order dated 28-4-2000 whereby the first recall application No. 69044 of 1999 was rejected in default.;