Law:

Section:

The petitioner has called in question order dated 18-2-1986, passed by respondent No. 1, refusing to restore the revision petition which was dismissed on account of default in appearance on 18-6-1985, 2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that respondent No. 2 made an application before respondent No. 3 for maintenance as wife of petitioner, vide Application No. 3-MFL (MA)-84 under section 9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner chose not to parti cipate in those proceedings and subsequently, vide order dated 23-10-1984 respondent No. 2 was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month for the period it was due. This order was impugned by petitioner in revision before respondent No. 1. This revision petition was dismissed in default on 18-6-1985. An application for the restoration of the same was dismissed by respondent No. 1 as no satisfactory explanation was advanced. Hence this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel 4. This petition has been filed after a lapse of nearly eight months. I asked the learned counsel to explain this delay, to which he frankly conceded that there is no rational explanation which can be offered in this regard. 5. Apart from this, the conduct of…