UDAI NARAIN AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. Perused the records.

(2.) The revisionist has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the court below has not considered the objection filed by the revisionist during the proceedings in the lower court.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the court below has recorded a clear finding that the opposite party/husband has appeared in the case on 6.1.2015 but despite having ample time and opportunity, he has not filed any objection against the application. The order impugned also shows that on the date of order, the husband was present in the court and he had moved an application for sending the matter to mediation centre. Hence it cannot be said that the revisionist was not given any opportunity of hearing and as such there appears no force in the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist.