IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL R.P.F.C NO.41 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATH BANAKAR S/O HANUMANTHAPPA BANAKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O WADAYARANAHALLI VILLAGE RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-577 601 …. PETITIONER (BY SRI C.GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT SUDHA @ REKHA W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORKER R/O C/O HER FATHER KOTRAPPA ANGADI, K.BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601 2. CHI VISHWANATH S/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 3. KUM. KRUTHIKA D/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS SINCE R2 AND R3 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN R1 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAYANTH RANGANNA, ADV., FOR SRI S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2012 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.102/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT DAVANGERE.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children of the petitioner. They filed Crl.Misc.No.102/2011 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Davangere, claiming that the petitioner having sufficient means has failed and neglected to maintain them.
2. On contest, the said petition came to be allowed on 06.07.2012 granting maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the date of the petition with a revision at 10% per year if the petitioner fails to pay the maintenance as and when it falls due.
3. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this case. There is delay of 2335 days in filing the petition. The reasons assigned to explain the delay is that respondents filed O.S.No.32/2014 against him before the Principal Civil Judge, Rannabennur for partition and separate possession of their share and in that case, final decree was passed on 04.09.2018 and decree was executed in respect of ‘B’ schedule property on 22.08.2017. On execution, the respondents were put in possession of their respective shares and therefore, they are not entitled to claim maintenance from that date onwards.
4. The petitioner in his affidavit has further contented that when he urged this point in the Recovery Proceedings filed by the respondents, the Trial Court orally directed him to take the order to that effect from the appropriate Court of law, that is how the delay has occurred in the matter.
5. As per the petitioner himself, the said suit was filed in the year 2014. The impugned order was passed on 06.07.2012. By the time the said suit was filed, the time for preferring this petition had expired. It is not his contention that he was ignorant of law. Even otherwise the fact that he contested O.S.No.32/2014 and final decree proceedings shows that he is not ignorant of legal proceedings.
6. If at all there is any change in circumstance to seek alteration of maintenance order, the petitioner’s remedy is elsewhere and not by way of this revision petition. Looked from any angle, the explanation cannot be accepted as sufficient cause or a bona fide one.
7. Even on the merits, the relationship between the parties is not disputed. The maintenance awarded as long as seven years back was Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.500/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3, the minor children, which is a meager sum.
Therefore, condonation of delay does not serve any purpose. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2019 is rejected. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2019 stood disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KG