Judgment : 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 Sec. 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 28. 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 28. 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 28. 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 28. 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 28. 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 28. 1994 is liable to be set aside. .4. The first decision he relies upon is State of Orissa v. Ainul Haque, (1993)3 Current Criminal Reports 2149. That is a case in which the Sessions Judge had granted bail to an accused arrested for the alleged offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1994 is liable to be set aside. .4. The first decision he relies upon is State of Orissa v. Ainul Haque, (1993)3 Current Criminal Reports 2149. That is a case in which the Sessions Judge had granted bail to an accused arrested for the alleged offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The High Court suo motu took cognizance of the matter in granting the bail by the Sessions Judge and fixed a date for enquiry. Even though a counsel had entered appearance for the accused, the High Court of Orissa without knowing that a counsel had entered appearance, due to inadvertence and without hearing that counsel, cancelled the bail granted to the accused. Later on when it is brought to the notice of the court that the counsel was not given opportunity to make his representation, the court felt that the order of cancellation of the bail was prejudicial as the accused was not heard and therefore the order passed by the High Court on suo motu revision was recalled under Sec. 362, Code of Criminal Procedure. In that case, the Court itself took suo motu revision on the order passed by the Sessions Judge and without knowing the appearance of the counsel, the order was passed by the court. Therefore, the High Court of Orissa felt that the inadvertence while passing the order was prejudicial to the interests of the accused and the previous order was liable to be recalled. That analogy cannot be compared for this case because in spite of the opportunities given to the petitioner and his counsel to argue the points mentioned in the ground of revision the counsel did not turn up and therefore the order has been passed after taking into consideration the contentions raised in the revision. Hence, there is no question of recalling the order under Sec. 362, Code of Criminal Procedure as ordered in the above case. 5. The next decision relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Raghavachari is Hazi Abdul Rehman v. Ashok Kumar, (1986)2 Crimes 323 . That is an appeal against acquittal by the lower court and the appellate court viz., the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the accused imposing the punishment of imprisonment. But under the new Code, the accused shall be heard on the question of sentence to be imposed on him. That is an appeal against acquittal by the lower court and the appellate court viz., the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the accused imposing the punishment of imprisonment. But under the new Code, the accused shall be heard on the question of sentence to be imposed on him. Somehow, by inadvertence in that case, the accused was not heard on the question of sentence and straightaway the order was passed for imprisonment. The court then realised the mistake and as the very order itself was against the provisions of law causing a grave miscarriage of justice exercising the powers under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside its order for the purpose of hearing the accused on the question of sentence. It is on account of the grave mistake committed by the court, which had caused the miscarriage of justice, the court felt that the court could exercise the power of review under Sec. 482 of the Code to set right the wrong done to the accused. In view of the grave mistake committed by it, the court had to invoke the inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code to set right the wrong. Therefore, that case also cannot be compared to this case, in which the petitioner, and his counsel did not come to the court to argue the points raised in the revision. .6. The third decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Balammal v. Mannanagatti, (1978)2 M.L.J. 277 . That is a decision of this Court for restoration of the appeal dismissed for default and this Court, invoking the powers under O. 41, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, the petition for restoration of appeal was allowed. In view of the specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal was restored to file and there is no corresponding provision under Code of Criminal Procedure for restoration of the disposed of criminal appeals. Hence, this decision also is not useful to the petitioner. 7. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are Ram Naresh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1500 and Keshav Lal v. Gaveria, A.I.R. 1952 Raj. 50. Hence, this decision also is not useful to the petitioner. 7. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are Ram Naresh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1500 and Keshav Lal v. Gaveria, A.I.R. 1952 Raj. 50. In both these cases, it is true that the disposed of criminal appeals were restored to file for the reason that the appeals were not disposed of on merit. In the first case viz. Ram Naresh v. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court, referring to the difficulties to the court that would be caused by the absence of the advocates, has, however, held that in criminal matters, the convicts must be heard before their matters were decided on merits and opportunity has to be given to them to put forth their case. On the disposal of the appeal by the High Court for non-prosecution, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court having found that the conviction and sentence was confirmed in the High Court without hearing the counsel set aside the order of the High Court and remanded back the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. As the lower appellate court did not hear counsel of the appellant, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the court and the appellate court has the powers of remand on any point, which it felt reasonable. Therefore, Supreme Court remanding the matter to the lower appellate court, cannot be compared for this case in which the petitioner seeks to set aside its own order. Therefore this decision also in no way helps the petitioner. .8. In the last decision, Keshav Lal v. Gaveria, A.I.R. 1952 Raj. 50, a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of dismissal for default, for the reason that there was no fault on the part of the applicant’s lawyer, who was waiting in the court, but without knowing that, his criminal revision was dismissed for default without considering the grounds on merit. In that case, a mistake had occurred as the presence of the counsel was not noted though he was present and secondly the order of dismissal was passed without considering the grounds. In that case, a mistake had occurred as the presence of the counsel was not noted though he was present and secondly the order of dismissal was passed without considering the grounds. Therefore, for these two reasons, the Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that the court should exercise its power under Sec. 561A (New Sec. 482) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for restoration of revision. But in this case, the counsel and the party were absent and the revision was considered on merit after taking into consideration the grounds and as the order has been passed on merit by this Court, this decision also is not helping the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Raghavachari would contend that passing the order for maintenance is in the civil nature and therefore, the matter has to be treated as a civil case for restoration of the revision. The grant of maintenance has been ordered only under Sec. 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the procedure has to be followed only as contemplated under the Code. There is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for restoration of the revision which has been disposed of on merit. Therefore, all the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no weight and the petition for restoration is not maintainable. 10. In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition S.R.No. 17522 of 1994 is rejected.