IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.784/2019 Between:
Sri. Siddaiah S/o Bellaiah Aged about 45 years R/at Yenagahalli Haradanahalli Hobli Chamarajanagara District – 571127. … Petitioner (By Sri. M.S.Basavaraju, Advocate) And:
1. Smt. Rathnamma W/o Sri. Siddaiah Aged about 37 years 2. Suchi D/o Sri. Siddaiah Aged about 16 years 3. Shwetha D/o Sri. Siddaiah Aged about 14 years R1 to R3 are r/at Heggavadi Village and Post Terakanambi Hobli Gundlupete Taluk Chamarajanagara District – 571 312.
Since R1 and R2 are minors Represented by their mother Respondent No.1. … Respondents This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the order dated 29.12.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara (Sitting at Kollegala) in Crl.A.No.37/2013.
This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband on I.A.No.1/2019. The said application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 449 days for preferring the present petition. It is also accompanied with an affidavit of the petitioner.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working in a private company and his work is seasonal work. Subsequently, he has fallen ill-health because of stomach pain and bleeding and he was hospitalized and took treatment. Immediately after coming to know of the impugned order, he obtained the certified copy and after arranging the finance, he had filed the present petition. As such, there is a delay of 449 days in preferring the present petition. On these grounds, he prayed to condone the delay and issue notice to the respondent.
3. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a dispute with regard to the relationship existing between him and respondent Nos.1 to 3. On perusal of the records, though the petition filed by respondent No.1- wife was came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, respondent No.1/wife preferred an appeal before the 1st Appellate Court and the 1st Appellate Court after considering the factual matrix of the case has granted monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. In all Rs.3,000/- was granted as a maintenance to all the three respondents herein. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.1/wife herself refused to live with the petitioner/husband and abandon him and started staying with her parents. But the relationship has been admitted and 1st Appellate Court has also awarded very nominal maintenance. It is the duty of the petitioner/husband to maintain his wife and children. Even as could be seen from the records produced by the petitioner, though he has contended that he is working in a Private Company, which is a Garment but no documents have been produced and he has also contended that he was suffered with stomach ache and hospitalized, but no documents have been produced to substantiate the above contentions. It is well settled proposition of law that if there is any delay, each day of delay should be explained with proper and cogent reasons. In the absence of any such material, there are no good grounds to condone the delay.
5. In the light of the observations held by me above, I am of the considered opinion that there is inordinate delay of 449 days in preferring this petition and same has not been explained properly with acceptable and cogent reasons. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is dismissed and consequently, the present petition is also dismissed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/2019 does not survive for consideration and same is also disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-