M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Misc. (Restoration) Application No. 45646 of 2000 has been made by the applicant/revisionist Shakil Ahmad for recall of order dated 28-4-2000 rejecting the first recall application No. 69044 of 1999. He is the husband and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are admittedly his wife and minor daughter respectively. ( 2 ) RELEVANT facts may be stated briefly for proper appreciation. The wife and minor daughter of the applicant/revisionist made an application against him under S. 125 of the Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance allowance which was allowed by the Principal Judge of Family Court, Kanpur Nagar on 9-2-1996 directing the payment of Rs. 300. 00 per month as maintenance allowance to the wife and Rs. 200. 00 per month as maintenance allowance to the daughter from the date of judgment i. e. 9-2-1996. The applicant/husband made an application under S. 126 (2) of the Cr. P. C. (case No. 243 of 1998) for recall of the said order dated 9-2-1996 granting maintenance allowance, inter alia, stating that it was an ex parte order. On merits, the Court below rejected the said restoration application which was barred by time by 13 months without even making an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. He preferred the present revision against the said order dated 9-2-1996 which was not admitted and a notice was directed to be issued under order dated 18-11-1998. The recovery proceedings against the revisionist/husband were stayed for a specified period. Wife filed her counter affidavit opposing the stay application averring, amongst other grounds, that despite knowledge of the proceedings under S. 125 of the Cr. P. C. , her husband simply lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other, avoiding appearance in the Court and he intentionally and wilfully refused to receive the notice of the same. It was also alleged by her that he had married second time with one Sona daughter of Nawab Ali in 1995 and one daughter had also been born from such wedlock. On the date of listing, the revisionist/husband did not appear. The revision was dismissed on 1-9-1999 in the presence of A. G. A. and the counsel for respondentnos. 2 and 3. The reason for the dismissal was that none appeared to press for the admission of revision. The stay order was vacated. On the date of listing, the revisionist/husband did not appear. The revision was dismissed on 1-9-1999 in the presence of A. G. A. and the counsel for respondentnos. 2 and 3. The reason for the dismissal was that none appeared to press for the admission of revision. The stay order was vacated. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the revisionist made restoration application No. 69044 of 1999 through counsel Sri R. D. Mishra. None appeared for him at the hearing of the restoration application too on 28-4-2000 when A. G. A. and the counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were present. This recall application resulted in rejection. Now again, another restoration application No. 45646 of 2000, which is presently under decision, has been made for the recall of the order dated 28-4-2000 whereby the first recall application No. 69044 of 1999 was rejected in default. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist, learned A. G. A. and the learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ( 5 ) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to oppose the recall application and a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant/revisionist. ( 6 ) THE ground made out in the recall application is that earlier recall application had been made by Sri R. D. Mishra, Advocate who was a patient of cardiac and it was also he who had moved the earlier original revision. Because of his illness he could not appear on 1-9-1999 when the revision was dismissed and on 28-4-2000 when the first recall application was dismissed. It has also been urged that after the revision was admitted, it could not have been dismissed in default of the revisionist and the Court ought to have decided it on merits. Reliance has been placed from the side of the revisionist on the following rulings :"1. Krishna Narain Lal v. State of Bihar, (2000) 2 JIC 585 (SC ). 2. Sanat Kumar Patnaik v. Binoy Kumar Nayak, 1999 Cri LJ 351 (Orissa), and3. Smt. Maiti v. State of U. P. , (2000) 2 JIC 425 (All ). " ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. Krishna Narain Lal v. State of Bihar, (2000) 2 JIC 585 (SC ). 2. Sanat Kumar Patnaik v. Binoy Kumar Nayak, 1999 Cri LJ 351 (Orissa), and3. Smt. Maiti v. State of U. P. , (2000) 2 JIC 425 (All ). " ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that the applicant/revisionist adopted dialatory tactics right from the beg-inning; that he has performed a second marriage, completely neglecting the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in maintaining them which is his statutory liability. Indulging in the same game, he absented on the date of listing of the revision on 1-9-1999 and then moved first recall application. However, he repeated the trick again when the first recall application came up for hearing on 28-4-2000. When the first recall application came to be rejected, he has moved the second recall application engaging another counsel urging the alleged illness of his first counsel Sri R. D. Mishra just to arouse sympathy of the Court. ( 8 ) I have carefully considered the matter and have also looked into the case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist. So far as the contention that the revision ought to have been decided on 1-9-1999 is concerned, this aspect is not germane presently. The reason is that at present only this much has to be seen whether there is any sufficient cause made out by the revisionist for the recall of the order dated 28-4-2000 whereby the first recall application had been rejected in his absence. On consideration of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that no sufficient cause has been made out to recall the order dated 28-4-2000 whereby the first restoration application was rejected. It is noted that the plea of the absence of the Counsel Sri R. D. Mishra on 1-9-1999 also on the ground of his illness had been advanced. That being so, the revisionist should have been doubly cautious in pursuing the first recall application and should have been vigilant to ensure that some one was present from his side to press the first recall application. Nothing of the kind was done. Indeed, the first recall application came to be dismissed as none appeared from the side of the applicant/revisionist to press it. Nothing of the kind was done. Indeed, the first recall application came to be dismissed as none appeared from the side of the applicant/revisionist to press it. Therefore, the applicant/revisionist has to blame himself for this predicament and for the legal consequences that flow there- from. ( 9 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 does not appear to be without substance that it is only as a device of the revisionist to infuse life in the second recall application that it has been moved through another counsel. The fair assessment of this Court on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances is that the applicant/revisionist is simply interested in lingering on the matter so as to avoid payment of any maintenanceallowance to his wife and daughter. Their misery can very well be imagined that they have no source of income and have not been able to realise even a single penny as maintenance allowance from the applicant/revisionist despite the maintenance allowance granted in their favour as back as on 9-2-1996. The amount awarded by the lower Court in their favour as maintenance allowance (Rs. 300/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs. 200. 00 per month in favour of the minor daughter) is just sufficient to keep them above the starvation level, but the misfortune is that they have not been able to realise even this much amount from the applicant/revisionist. It may also be stated as a passing reference that revision had not been admitted when it was dismissed on 1-9-1999. It was not so that the revision had been entertained by the Court decision suo-motu. The fact was that the applicant/revisionist sought to file revision against the lower Courts order dated 24-9-1998 whereby his application under S. 126 (2) of the Cr. P. C. had been dismissed. As he did not turn up to point out any flaw in the impugned order, which is reasoned and well discussed, there could be no question of admitting the revision in the absence of the applicant/revisionist. ( 10 ) IT is amply revealed that the applicant/revisionist demonstrated attitude throughout to procrastinate the proceedings of maintenance allowance at every stage. To say the least, he has behaved as an irresponsible husband and careless father. ( 10 ) IT is amply revealed that the applicant/revisionist demonstrated attitude throughout to procrastinate the proceedings of maintenance allowance at every stage. To say the least, he has behaved as an irresponsible husband and careless father. ( 11 ) TO sum up the discussion, the recall application No. 45646 of 2000 has no merit whatsoever and it is hereby rejected. Application dismissed.