Devan Ramachandran, J.

Smt. K. K. Rasiya – learned counsel for the appellant, argued these appeals for a considerable period of time today. She asserted that the factual findings of the learned Family Court in the judgments are not accurate; and that her client was, in fact, represented through counsel, who had unfortunately not told her about the postings. We, however, asked her whether her client had moved the learned Family Court, under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’), to have the Original Petitions restored; to which, she replied saying that her instructions are that her client attempted to do so, but that the applications for the same had not been “considered”, since she did not have a “proper”

lawyer on account of financial distress.

2. Whatever be the explanation that Smt. K.

K. Rasiya makes, it is evident that, unless the appellant had applied for the restoration of the Original Petition before the learned Family Court itself, it would not be possible for her