- (1.) Baljit Kaur (petitioner herein) had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court for grant of maintenance for herself as also for her minor children namely Dimple and Preet. On one of the dates, i.e. 7-12-2001, none appeared for the petitioners. Even the process fee was also not filed for effecting service upon the respondent. As such, the aforesaid petition was dismissed in default for non-appearance. Thereafter another application was moved for restoration of the petition. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 4.1.2002. Hence the present revision petition.
(2.) Mr. Balram Singh learned counsel for the revisionists contends that so far as non-appearance of the counsel on 7-2-2001 is concerned, the lawyers were on strike, as a result of which the counsel could not appear in the Court. So far as the deposit of the process-fee is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the counsel had wrongly informed Baljit Kaur petitioner that the process-fee had already been deposited.
(3.) Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent to controvert this factual position, I have no reason to disbelieve the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. In my view no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in case the petition for maintenance is restored because the service upon him was not effected till the date of dismissal of the petition, i.e. 7-12-2001.;