M ARASAL CHERTY Vs. MANONMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is placed before me by the Registry on the question of maintainability of the petition. The petitioner, who filed the Criminal Revision Case No. 440 of 1992 challenging the order of the Family Court under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure granting maintenance to his wife, has filed this petition to re-hear his Revision No. 440 of 1992 which has been already disposed of on 23.8. 1994. According to the petitioner, as his counsel was engaged in another court, he could not attend this Court for enquiry in the revision on 23.8.1994 and therefore, this Court has passed an order ex parte and as his counsel was not heard on the contentions raised by him in the revision, he should be given an opportunity to re-hear the matter by setting aside the ex parte order dated 23.8.1994.

(2.) The Registry entertained doubt as to the maintainability of this application in view of the fact that the Revision of the petitioner has been disposed of on merits on 23.8.1994. Hence, this petition is placed before me for consideration as to the maintainability of the petition itself.

(3.) The revision of the petitioner challenging the order of maintenance granted to his wife, the respondent herein, by the Family Court, Madras was listed before me on 23.8.1994. As it was found that the counsel had not come to argue the matter, the records were perused and the revision was disposed of on merits after taking into consideration all the points raised by the petitioner. However, now the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V. Raghavachari would contend that even though the revision has been disposed of on merits as the counsel for the petitioner did not argue the revision it has to be deemed to be an ex parte order, which is liable to be set aside, so that he could argue the points he has raised in the petition. The learned counsel refers to certain decisions in support of his contention that the order passed on 23.8.1994 is liable to be set aside.