IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR RPFC No.51 OF 2019 BETWEEN Sri. G.N.Umesh, S/o. Naganna, Aged about 43 years, Residing at Akkasaligara Beedi, Gubbi Town, Gubbi, Tumkur District-572216.
(By Sri. Siddarudha B. Pujari, Advocate) AND Smt. R.V.Gunavathi @ Divya, W/o. G.N.Umesh, D/o. R.Venkataiah, Aged about 32 years, R/at No.43, 1st Floor, 8th Cross, Behind Mahalakshmi Tent, Nandinilayout, Bengaluru-560096.
(By Smt. R.V.Gunavathi-respondent served) …Petitioner …Respondent This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2018 passed in Crl. Misc.No.125/2015 on the file of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, partly allowing the petition filled under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
This RPFC coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER I.A.1/19 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay of 305 days in filing the revision petition. In the affidavit filed along with the application it is stated that the petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the Family Court. It is also stated that the respondent i.e., the petitioner in the maintenance petition initiated execution by filing Crl.Misc.No. 125/2015. In the impugned order it is clearly observed that the respondent i.e., the petitioner herein appeared before the court. He also appeared for mediation. After failure of mediation, he did not choose to file statement of objections. The impugned order also shows that the petitioner herein adduced evidence as RW-1.
2. Now the learned counsel submits that his lawyer did not inform him about the disposal of Crl.Misc.125/2015. This reason cannot be considered for condoning delay. When he has participated in the proceedings, he must be aware of the disposal of petition also. What is forthcoming is utter negligence in filing this revision petition. Therefore delay cannot be condoned. I.A.1/19 is therefore dismissed. Consequently petition is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sd