1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.172/2009. (Suraj Vs. Sunita) DATE OF JUDGMENT : May 18, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Shyam Ladrecha for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 01.05.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No.31/2009, whereby, application filed by respondent under Order 9 Rule 9, C.P.C. for restoration of the application filed under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reasons for restoration of the application are totally false because in the application it is stated by the applicant that the day on which the order impugned was passed they were in the Court and in the order-sheet it is wrongly mentioned that they were not present at the time of calling the case by the Court. I have perused the order passed on 01.05.2009. In my 2 opinion, no interference is required in this petition because for the absence on 06.03.2009 the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act was rejected. However, it is made clear that at the time of deciding application under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, learned trial Court shall consider the fact that application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution on 06.03.2009. Therefore, at the time of granting maintenance, this fact shall be taken into consideration. With the above observation, this revision petition is dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.