- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30309 RPFC No. 102 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 102 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. MR. PRAKASH SHETTY AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE LAXMAN SHETTY R/A LALITHA SHETTY COMPOUND PERVAJE, PATTONJKATTE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISITRICT 574104 …PETITIONER (BY MS.SHWETHA NAYAK N FOR SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER SATHVIK AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT PREETHI R/A PREETHI GANJIMATT MANGALORE TALUK 574145 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U. ,ADVOCATE FOR GUARDIAN OF MINOR RESPONDENT) RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.52/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.125(1) OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30309 RPFC No. 102 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.52/2016 dated 16.10.2021 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K.Mangaluru whereby, the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the son from the date of the petition till the date of completion of his education or till he become financially independent, whichever is earlier. 2. That order is assailed before this Court in this RPFC which is filed in the year 2023. I.A.No.1/2023 is filed to condone the delay of 319 days in filing the petition. In support of the said I.A. an affidavit is filed. In that affidavit it is stated that the Petitioner/husband has challenged the order dated 16.10.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.Case No.52/2016. 3. It is the case of the husband that wife herself withdrew from the company of the husband and shown cruelty towards him. Because of the cruelty meted out to him he has filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30309 RPFC No. 102 of 2023 MC.No.54/2013 seeking dissolution of marriage. At that point of time, this petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C came to be filed and Court has granted Rs.10,000/- as maintenance. It is stated that he had paid permanent alimony as per the order passed by the Family Court in MC.No.54/2013 and there is no due from his side. He was attending the execution case which was filed by his son seeking execution of the impugned order. It is stated that due to ill-health and financial position he could not able to contact his advocate at Bangalore to prefer an appeal. Hence, there is delay of 319 days in filing the RPFC. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that because of health reasons of the husband, he could not file the revision petition on time. Considering the same, the said delay may be condoned and matter may be heard on merits. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that the petitioner has failed to give cogent reasons for the delay and no grounds have made out to condone the delay of 319 days in filing the petition. Hence, I.A.No.1/2023 has to be dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30309 RPFC No. 102 of 2023 6. Having heard counsels on either side, perused the material on record. When an application is filed seeking to condone the delay, particularly when there is an inordinate delay, the party has to explain the reasons for such delay. In this case, except saying that he was not able to contact the advocate and suffering from ill-health, nothing has been placed on record to show that there are genuine reasons for such delay. 7. After an order is passed, execution is filed. When he was contesting the execution, according to his own affidavit at that point of time he was not aggrieved by the order. Why he has taken the decision to file revision at later point of time? Why he could not file at earlier point of time? Except reason of ill-health and not able to contact advocate, no other convincing reasons are forth coming. Hence, this Court cannot condone the delay as the matter of right. In the considered opinion of this Court, no grounds made out to condone the delay. Hence this Court is passing the following order: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30309 RPFC No. 102 of 2023 ORDER i. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 is dismissed. ii. Consequently, Revision Petition is dismissed. iii. All I.A.s in revision petition stands closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ