JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. By means of this revision the revisionist has challenged an order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application for recall of an order dated 9.10.2007 awarding maintenance against the revisionist. 3. It is significant that in the revision, nowhere it is mentioned that even a single penny has been paid to opposite party No. 2 after the order dated 9.10.2007. 4. It is noted in the impugned order that the revisionist was deliberately absenting himself not only from the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., but in a case under Section 498-A, IPC, which has been filed against him in which his mother and father, who were also accused had appeared. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in Satya Narain Gaur v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (1) JIC 237 (All), for the proposition that restoration application should be liberally considered even if three months period had expired. 6. In that case a finding was recorded that compromise had been effected between the parties earlier and that is why the revisionist therein was not appearing. Also the said case ex-parte order was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- plus maintenance amount of Rs. 800/- per month. Therefore, the said case is distinguishable. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist then argued that he has obtained an ex-parte decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act dated 24.4.2007 against opposite party No. 2. 8. The mere fact that he has been able to obtain an exparte decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the same cannot detract him from his liability to pay the maintenance. 9. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 10. The revision is accordingly dismissed. ————