IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ M.F.A. No. 2044 OF 2015 (FC) BETWEEN:
SMT. SHYAMALA KUMARI HOSAMANE AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O G.SHRIRAMA BHAT NO.2414, 2ND FLOOR, 15TH ‘A’ CROSS 24TH MAIN, HOSUR-SARJAPURA ROAD LAYOUT, SECTOR-1 BANGALORE-560102 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. SHRIRAMA BHAT AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O PARAMESHWARA BHAT MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE MANJESHWAR BRANCH KASARGOD TALUK & DISTRICT-671121 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GANESH BHAT, Y.H, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF HINDU MARRIGAE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2013 PASSED M.C.NO.3754/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T There is a delay of 486 days in filing this appeal. I.A.No.1/2015 has been filed seeking for condonation of delay.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the wife who filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore seeking the relief of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The trial Court by judgment dated 19.08.2013 has dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking for condonation of delay of 486 days in filing the appeal. He submits that appellant’s mother was not well and therefore, she had gone to her native place to look after her mother and therefore, the delay has occurred and hence, the same may be condoned.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has filed a frivolous petition before the trial Court. That the respondent is still interested in the appellant. That the respondent has complied with the directions to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the appellant. That the reason assigned is not correct and true and that after the delay of 486 days, this appeal has been filed. That there is no merit in this appeal and since there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay, the application seeking for condonation of delay of 486 days may be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking for condonation of delay of 486 days in filing the appeal. We note that the affidavit is incomplete inasmuch as the appellant has failed to state as to who had fallen sick and to look after whom, she had travelled to the native place and that the reasons assigned according to us is not true and correct. Hence, we find that there is no sufficient cause made out to condone the delay of 486 days in filing the appeal. Hence, I.A.No.1/2015 is dismissed. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Prs*