Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—The main question which falls for consideration is whether the order deciding criminal revision on merit in the absence of any or both parties can be recalled.

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Anita Singh, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this restoration/recall application, in brief, are that in the proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in case No. 226 of 1995 (Smt. Meeta Devi v. Rakesh Kumar Kesharwani) maintenance allowance @ Rs. 500/- p.m. from the date of the application was granted vide order dated 4-1-2001 passed by the Family Court, Allahabad. That order was challenged by the applicant-revisionist in this Court in Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2001, which was listed for hearing on 16-7-2007. When revising the list, the case was called out, the Counsel of the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 were not present in Court. Hence, this Court after hearing learned A.G.A. and going through the record, dismissed the revision on merit. Now the revisionist has come to this Court and aforesaid application to recall