IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.287/2019 BETWEEN:
MR. RAMACHANDRA, S/O LATE SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT AMRUTHUR VILLAGE, INDIRA NAGARA, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 111.
(BY SRI C.S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.SUJATHA H.B., W/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ...PETITIONER 2. KUM.CHANDANA, D/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, SINCE SHE IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GUDEMARANAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 127.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.12.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.A.NO.34/2015 AND IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.06.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MAGADI ON I.A.NO.I IN CRL.MISC.NO.184/2015.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the respondent – wife.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner – husband is absent.
3. I.A.No.1/2019 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 804 days in filing the present petition. It is also accompanied with the affidavit of the petitioner – husband.
4. In the affidavit, it has been stated that he is poor man without any proper job and income. Hence, he could not file the petition in time. He has to look after his old aged parents and in order to arrange the money and file the present petition, the delay has been caused. On these grounds, he prayed to condone the delay.
5. The said application has been seriously contested by the learned counsel for the respondent - wife by filing objections and contending that the present revision petition has been filed against the grant of interim maintenance. No proper and cogent reasons have been stated to condone the delay of 804 days. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent – wife that already the evidence has been completed and the matter has been posted for final hearing. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the application.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the reasons stated in the affidavit and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent - wife.
7. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner – husband against the grant of the interim maintenance passed by the trial Court in a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara and the said order has been modified by granting interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the first respondent – wife and Rs.3,000/- to the second respondent – their daughter. Against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed. On close reading of the contents of the affidavit filed along with I.A.No.1/2019, I find that there is no cogent and proper reasons are assigned explaining the delay of 804 days. The only contention which has been taken up by the petitioner – husband is that, he is poor and has no proper job. He has old age parents to be looked after by him and in order to arrange money, the delay has been caused. It is well settled proposition of law that each days delay has to be explained properly with cogent and acceptable reasons.
8. In that light, I find that no good reason has been shown to condone the delay.
9. Be that as it may, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent – wife that both the parties have lead the evidence and matter has been fixed for final hearing. Under such circumstances, any how the present petition has been filed challenging the interim maintenance granted by the Court below. The said rights are also adjudicated before the Court below and no prejudice would be caused if this petition is not taken on merits. Under such facts and circumstances, I.A.No.1/2019 is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of I.A.No.1/2019, the present revision petition also stands dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj