SAU KALPANA OMPRAKASH NIGHOT Vs. OMPRAKASH BHAURAOJI NIGHOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant had filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 318 of 1994 for recovery of arrears of maintenance. THE applicant had paid process fee for issuing notice to the non-applicant and the applicant continued attending the Court till 21. 11. 1996. THE case of the applicant is that in November 1996, her father fell ill and she had to go to her father's place where she had to stay till September 1997. THE said application was dismissed on 30th September, 1997. THE applicant filed application for restoration which was rejected vide order dated 19. 10. 2000 on the ground that since 1994 the applicant had not taken steps for service on the non-applicant; that the applicant had not filed any documentary evidence about illness of her father and that Rule 22 of the Family Court Rules 1988 clearly empowers the Court to dismiss the proceedings in case the party fails to take effective steps for service of notice within a period of six months. Learned Advocate for the applicant has urged before me that the applicant had paid the process fee for service on the non-applicant and that the trial Court was not justified in refusing to restore the said application. She pointed out that the trial Court should have taken a liberal view of the matter since the applicant has no means to maintain herself and that she is not getting the maintenance which is awarded in her favour. Relying upon the judgments of Allahabad High Court in Shabihul Hasan Jafari. v. Zarin Fatma (reported in 1 (2001) DMC 1) and of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Kamla Devi and others. v. Mehma Singh (reported in 1989 Cri. L. J. 1866), it is submitted that the application be ordered to be restored.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate for the respondent has vehemently objected to the restoration of the application on the ground that the applicant had not taken steps to effect service on the non-applicant since 1994 till the application was dismissed on 30. 09. 1997 and that no sufficient cause has been shown for restoration. He also pointed out that in terms of rule 22 of the Family Court Rules, 1988, the trial Court has dismissed the application since the service on the non-applicant was not effected within six months and for that matter for almost three years. He, therefore, contends that the revision application be rejected.