Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 103 (KAR)

M. Arvinda Swamy v. Chetana

2010-01-25

RAVI MALIMATH

body2010
Judgment :- (1) The respondent filed Crl. Misc. No. 163/2007 before the Family Court at Davanagere under Section 125 Cr. P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 4,000/-. p.m. The Court below by the impugned order directed the petitioner/respondent to pay Rs. 2,000/- p.m. as maintenance from the date of the petition i.e. dated 19-9-2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. (2) Misc. Cvl. No. 20699/2009 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 283 days in filing this petition. In support thereof, the petitioner has stated that he was suffering from fever and was tired. (3) Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the affidavit is false inasmuch as the petitioner is hale and healthy. The reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit cannot be accepted. (4) On hearing both the counsel. I am of the considered view that there is no sufficient cause made out by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing this revision petition. The only reason accorded is that the petitioner is suffering from fever and is tired. The said reason does not constitute sufficient cause in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (5) Notwithstanding with the absence of good ground to condone the delay in filing the petition. I heard Sri Manjunatha- pattanashetty. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on merits also. He contends that the impugned order is an ex parte order and he was not aware of the proceedings. In the petition, he stated that on the first occasion when notice was sought to be served oh him, the postal shara was that the door was locked and the petitioner was migrated. On the second occasion, the postal shara was that the addressee was not in station. However, on enquiry, it was noted that the petitioner has refused to take notice. He further contends that without notice on the petitioner, the impugned order is bad in law. (6) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. (7) The marriage has taken place between the petitioner and the respondent on 7-8-2006 and ever since then the respondent was being ill-treated. Since there was ill-treatment, the wife/respondent herein was compelled to even file a police complaint alleging the atrocities on her and sometime thereafter she left the house and the petition was filed seeking maintenance. (7) The marriage has taken place between the petitioner and the respondent on 7-8-2006 and ever since then the respondent was being ill-treated. Since there was ill-treatment, the wife/respondent herein was compelled to even file a police complaint alleging the atrocities on her and sometime thereafter she left the house and the petition was filed seeking maintenance. The Trial Court considered the petition and awarded the maintenance. The only ground urged is that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings and that notice was not served on him. Since the petitioner himself and the family members refused to take notice, the petitioner has deliberately avoided receiving the notice. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances involved, this Court by the order dated 18-11-2009 granted the interim order of stay subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000/-and in terms of the same, the amount has been deposited. By the order dated 4-12-2009, the petitioner was directed to continue to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-per month towards future maintenance. The parties were before the Court on 17-12-2009 and they could not arrive at settlement. On 11-1-2010. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arrears of maintenance would be deposited on or before 25-1-2010. The same has not been done. Therefore, the benefit extended to the petitioner has not been availed of by him. The petitioner has no mind either to pay the arrears or to take benefit of the equitable order passed in his favour. Hence, I find no good ground to allow the revision petition. For the aforesaid reasons. Misc. Cvl. No. 20699/2009 for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently the revision petition is dismissed.