IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL R.P.F.C.NO.167 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Sri.Mohammed Akram Pasha S/o Sheik Fakriddin Sab Aged about 45 years R/at New Bharath Saw Mills K.B.Hall hand post, Lakya Hobli Chickmagalur Taluk Chickmagalur District-56. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRATHEEP.K.C., ADV.) AND 1. Smt.Kahkashan Tarranum W/o Mohammed Akram Pasha D/o C.M. Mir Liyakath Ali Aged about 35 years 2. Khalendar B.Mehek D/o Mohammed Akram Pasha Aged about 7 years Respondent No.2 is minor represented By her mother respondent No.1 Both are residing at C.M.Complex, Mallandur Road Uppalli, Chickmagalur Taluk Chikmagalur District-67. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RUKHIABI, ADV.) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2015 PASSED IN CR.MISC.NO.33/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Whether the petitioner had the sufficient cause in filing this petition after delay of 1310 days, is the question before this court.
2. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the wife and daughter of the petitioner. They filed C.Misc.No.33/2013 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, claiming that the petitioner having sufficient income failed and neglected to maintain them though they are not able to maintain themselves.
3. The petitioner contested the petition denying the paternity of the second respondent, negligence on his part and the quantum of maintenance claimed.
4. The trial court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties by the impugned order awarded maintenance of `5,000/- to each of the petitioners.
5. There is delay of 1310 days in filing the petition. The petitioner has put forth two grounds to explain the delay. One is that his Advocate had not communicated the order to him in time. Second one is that, his mother was sick, therefore, he could not do the needful in time.
6. So far as non-communication of the order, affidavit of his Counsel is not filed to substantiate the said contention. In fact, behind the back of the counsel making such statement amounts to allegation against the Advocate, which is liable to be deprecated.
7. Petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate the medical ground of his parent. Therefore, there is no acceptable explanation for the delay.
8. Apart from that, the relationship of the petitioner and first respondent was not disputed. The petitioner went to the extent of seeking DNA test of the respondent No.2, who was a minor child aged 3 years. The said test result proved him to be the father of respondent No.2. By such of his act the petitioner not only disgraced and humiliated the respondents more particularly respondent No.2 an innocent child, but also violated her human right to live with dignity.
9. The trial court considering all the material before it has passed the order. It appears the petitioner has no arguable case. Therefore condonation of delay may not serve any purpose also. Therefore, I.A.No.2/2019 and consequently, the petition are dismissed with costs.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 stood disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-