^) ^WWI (RNI<t» 75ET "41^1d<4, s9Tily'ie, [s|(yii'Mi,< {£. fi. L^•~) D-tb- ^ 7 /&7- ^....».....:.......................................^200 3II^?I 'q^T ( iqt^l't^) 3!I^I ^BI fi;-f wffsn^TsF^N? CWi<tR tifea 3TT^T <f>l<<f<'l<fl-1 ^lildf 4 ft'Zt tFn*(i< ^TSiRlIt 311^1 DB: HOW'BLB 8HRI DHIRBNBlKA MI8HKAABD HON'BLE SHRI DIUP RAOSASEB DESHMUKH. JJ APPBLLANT Devendra years, son ofvul^eDtv Gunderdehl. Versus iuinar Dewangan, aged about 38 ?f Shri Narayan Dewaagau, Resident ;vgahan, Arjunda, Post Arjiuida, Tah. Distt. Durg (CG) RESPONDENT Sint. Lata Shri. House No. TahsU and O APPEAL UNDER SECTiOM D^waagan, ased about 35 years, wife of Deventlra Kiunar Dewangaa, resident of 4p8, Subhash Nagar, Kasarideeh, Durg, (istrict Durg (CG) i.9 OF THE FAMILY COUR're ACT. 1984 21-8-2008 Shri N.S. Dhuraadhar, Sint. Meera Jaiswal witfa for the respondent. This appeal under Sectioti directed against the order date<|l 2nd Additioiial Principal Judg^ 39/2007, whereby the appUcaljion Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for r4 which was disinissed on 9-5-20107, Leamed counsel for fhe Court wifhout considering the non-appearaace on 9-5-2007] A|lvocate, for the appellaat ISusbri Itu Rani Miikharjee, Advocates 19 ofthe Family Courts Act, 1984 is 17tb August, 2007 passed by learaed Kamily Court, UTITK ta Case No. preferred by fhe appeilaiit under tstoration of Civil Suit No, 21A/2007, ', has been rejccted. ^ppellant submits fhatlea-aed FamSy Ireasons ass^ned by the appeBant for has rejected fhe application for ^:'e!3£aEi%., € ^- 1^ s ^ ^^^^%. 1 •^..t'22-'^ •M\^t\W SWM '(TOT 3TT^T St)*li<t) TST '^ww^, •a-'^wie, h^wy. 11*«11 tKNI<»» •W( 200 SII^T 'q^T (I'lt^l'i^) TOITW ^ifro SD^I restorauon on some extraiieoul his appUcation was dismissed On fhe ofher haud, veheiaently contended that th^ maintenance fixed bv the Faid of payment of iatenm maiu^ Therefore, this appeal niay depositing entire amount of i] with iinposition ofexeinplaiy c\ Having heaid leamed appeal is aUowed and it is dire^ be restored to its or^uial uum| deposits the entire amoiint of pays cost ofRs. 3,000/- to fhe| SdA i Dhirendra Mishra Judge 'bWfi-l'fl-l t<Wc)f 4 fe^t <|«]«;K ^?3TfWI3II^H |s grouad tbat on earUer occasion also, t>n default. |eamed counsel for the respondent appeUant has failed to pay fhe interun |ily Court and just to avoid the UabiUly snance, he chose to remain absent. |3C allowed subject to ftie appellant ijiterim mamtenance due on this date {)St. jsoiuisel for the pardes, the iastaat <;ted that C-ivil Suit No. 21A/2007 shaU ^er on fhe conditiou that tbe appeBant ^naintenance payable tiu date aad also Irespondent. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 51T^T ^F^ ^ll^, -FS/197—3/2008—»0,000. ira" '^a.i.t^