AMAR SARAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Ad­ditional Government Advocate.
(2.) BY means of this revision the revi­sionist has challenged an order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application for recall of an order dated 9.10.2007 awarding maintenance against the revisionist. It is significant that in the revision, no­where it is mentioned that even a single penny has been paid to opposite party No. 2 after the order dated 9.10.2007. It is noted in the impugned order that the revisionist was deliberately absent­ing himself not only from the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C, but in a case un­der section 498-A IPC, which has filed against him in which his mother and father, who were also accused had appeared.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revision­ist has placed reliance upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in Satya Narain Gaur v. State of U.P. and otters? for the proposi­tion that restoration application should be liberally considered even if three months period had expired.;