IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1484/2016 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Tabasum Sultana, W/o. Ashfaq Pasha, D/o. Syed Ibrahim, Aged about 29 years.
2. Noor Zamma, D/o. Ashfaq Pasha, Aged about 6 years.
3. Noor Shama, D/o.Ashfaq Pasha, Aged about 5 years.
Since petitioner Nos.2 & 3 Are minors rep. by their Mother & natural guardian Smt. Tabasum Sultana.
All are r/at No.26/AA, 16th Cross, APJ Abdul Kalam Road, Opp. Farida Shoe Company, Govindapur Main Road, Nagavara, Bengaluru-560 045. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Asadullaha, Advocate-Absent; Sri. Srinivasa.M.G, Advocate-Absent) AND:
Ashaq Pasha, S/o. Bashu Sab, Aged about 32 years, R/at Near Kanekal Bus Stop, Opp. Bashu Sab, Zin Rani Thota, Bellary-583 101. ... Respondent (By Sri.A.S.Kulkarni, Advocate-Absent) This CRL.RP is filed U/S.397 R/w Section 401 of CR.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the P.O., F.T.C.-X, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.568/2013 and to confirm the judgment and order dated 17.08.2013 passed by the P.O., M.M.T.C.-VI, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.6/2013.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R None appears either on behalf of the petitioners or respondents. I.A.No.1/2016 has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 634 days in filing the present Revision Petition.
2. It is stated that in the application being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate he preferred the Appeal No.568/2013 before the learned District and Sessions Judge and as he was not keeping well and suffering from thyroid and his daughter suffering from cardiac and mental related disease and was taking treatment. For the above said reasons he could not contact his counsel within time to prefer the present Revision Petition. Thereafter, he contacted his advocate and obtained the certified copy and after discussion, he filed the present Revision Petition after delay of 634 days. It is further stated that if the delay is not condoned he will be put to greater hardship. On these grounds, it is prayed to condone the delay.
3. Though this petition is of the year 2016, the said application is also pending since then and subsequently the learned counsel for the petitioner files a retirement memo and another counsel has appeared but he has also not filed vakalath. Thereafter, the petitioner and his counsel have remained absent and there is no representation. Today also none appeared for the parties. There is a delay of 634 days. Though it is contended in the said application that he was not keeping well and his daughter was also suffering from cardiac and mental illness, in order to substaintiate the said factuals not even single piece of paper has been produced except the affidavit of the petitioner. Even as could be seen from the records, when the petitioner preferred the Crl.A.No.568/2013 before the Additional session Judge and FDC Bengaluru that there also he filed the appeal after the period of limitation and the Court below after taking the liberal view condoned the delay and appeal was heard and dismissed. The attitude of the present petitioner, if it is seen, he is in the habit of remaining absent and he is not diligent in prosecuting the case. The present petition has been filed by the respondent wife and children under Section 29 of Domestic Violence Act. The Trial Court after considering the said facts and circumstances granted the relief but on one or the other grounds the petitioner has approached this Court. When he is not diligent, no proper reasons stated with supporting documents and there is inordinate delay of 634 days in filing the present Crl.R.P., it is well settled proposition of law that whenever there is a delay in filing the petition each day’s delay has to be properly and satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Even the affidavit is very vague and it is not supported by any documents.
Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that there is no justification in allowing I.A.No.1/2016 to condone the delay. I.A.No.1/2016 is dismissed. Consequently the Revision Petition is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE