- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5927 RPFC No. 100040 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100040 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. VIJAYKUMAR S/O. HARISCHANDARA LAMANI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER, R/O. SECTOR NO.101, NAVANAGAR, TALUK/DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SHWETA W/O. VIJAYKUMAR LAMANI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. LINGARAJ NAGAR, VIJAYLAXMI COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029. …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDGMENT (ORDER) AND DECREE PASSED BY I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI IN CRL.MISC.NO.381/2021 DATED 14.10.2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5927 RPFC No. 100040 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.381/2021, challenging the order dated 14.10.2022 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the respondent herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. Since, there is delay of 792 days in filing the petition, I.A.No.1/2025 is filed seeking condonation of delay. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the reasons set out in the affidavit accompanying the application in I.A. No.1/2025. The reasons set out for condonation of delay is found at paragraph No.4 of the affidavit, wherein, it is stated that, the appellant was not aware about the proceedings. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5927 RPFC No. 100040 of 2025 5. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that, the respondent – husband is Civil Engineer and has represented through an advocate before the Family Court. It is also to be noted that, statement of objections has been filed by the respondent – husband before the Family Court and as such, the petitioner herein has contested the matter on merits. 6. In that view of the matter, the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application in I.A.No.1/2025 cannot be accepted to condone the delay of more than two years in filing the petition as the petitioner herein has not been diligent and has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union Of India1. 7. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM/CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 1 (2025) 1 SCC 625