- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5698 RPFC No. 100199 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100199 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: K. CHANDRASHEKAR @ K. CHANDRANNA, S/O. KURUGODEPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. HAIKAL, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577501. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHRUTHI S.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DAKSHAYANI W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. NEHA D/O. CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRANNA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, R/O. HAIKAL, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577501. (RESPONDENT-2 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER DAKSHAYANI RESPONDENT-1) PRESENTLY RESIDING VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 PRAYING SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN CRL. MISC.NO.276/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5698 RPFC No. 100199 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner herein is assailing the order dated 27.10.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.276/2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Hubballi (for short “the Family Court”) allowing the petition in part. 2. Since there is a delay of 894 days in filing the petition, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.1/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition. 3. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, I have carefully examined the reasons assigned by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/2024. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned in paragraph 7 of the affidavit accompanying the application, the reason for delay cannot be considered as a ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay of nearly three years in filing the petition. Hence, I am of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5698 RPFC No. 100199 of 2024 the view that the ‘sufficient cause’ has not been made to condone the delay in filing the petition in view of the declaration of law made in the case of the State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra v. Union of India2 has held that it is not the length of delay that would be required to be consider while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay has to be examined while considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned in paragraph 7 of the affidavit accompanying the application in I.A.No.1/2024, I am of the view that sufficient cause has not been shown for allowing I.A.No.1/2024 and hence, the I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the petition also stands dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9 1 (2025) 3 SCC 752 2 (2025) 1 SCC 625