- (1.)Heard Sri Vishesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist , Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party and perused the record.
(2.)Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad had allowed the petition of Smt. Ram Lali under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed her husband Ram Achal Singh (present revisionist) to pay her maintenance. After some time applicant of the original case had filed application under section 127 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Misc. Case No. 83/2003 for enhancement of amount of maintenance. Said petition was allowed by the court below on 14.10.2004. Then opposite party-revisionist moved recall application dated 29.10.2005, which was allowed by the court below on 8.12.2006. After that fresh opportunity of hearing was afforded to the parties, then court below decided the said application under section 127 Cr.P.C. afresh on 23.2.2008 in absence of opposite party-revisionist and awarded enhancement maintenance in favour of applicant Smt. Ram Lali. Thereafter opposite party-revisionist again moved restoration application on 15.7.2008, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 197/2008, Ram Achal Singh Vs. Smt. Ram Lali. In this case court below had accepted the objection and afforded opportunity of hearing to both the parties and thereafter passed impugned order dated 22.7.2009, by which said restoration application/Misc. Case No. 197/2008 was rejected. Aggrieved by this impugned order dated 22.7.2009 present revision has been preferred.
(3.)A perusal of record of the case and impugned order reveal that court below had afforded opportunity of hearing to revisionist and opposite party and thereafter passed impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The ground for delay and absence during proceedings of the case, as stated by the revisionist, was considered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, who had appreciated them in the light of the available records and thereafter gave finding of fact that revisionist had deliberately not moved any application for recalling of order dated 23.2.2008. Trial Court had also gave finding that no satisfactory explanation was given by revisionist for condoning the delay in moving the application for restoration/Misc. Case No. 197/2008. These findings of the trial court are apparently presentable and acceptable. Impugned order appears to have been passed after appreciation of evidence and after affording opportunity of hearing to parties.