- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30958 RPFC No. 218 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 218 OF 2025 BETWEEN: ABDUL KHADER S/O SADU BEARY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO 1-41, NEAR BIG HOUSE, ADYAR, VALACHIL, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT- 575 029 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER MOHAMMED NAKASH TAMIM S/O ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 2. MASTER AHMED NAIM THANAZ S/O ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS 3. MASTER MOHAMMED NAFIABU S/O ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS ALL THE RESPONDENTS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER MRS.SUMAYYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O MR ABOOBAKKAR, R/AT NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, EMMEKERE BOLAR, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT -575 001 …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2022 PASSED IN CRL.Misc.NO.70/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30958 RPFC No. 218 of 2025 FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER I.A.No.1/2025 is filed to condone the delay of 907 days in filing the petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is stated that the impugned order is passed on 07.11.2022, however, the said order was not communicated to the petitioner. Due to the poor financial condition and the short notice of the proceedings, the petitioner was unable to engage a counsel to represent the case before the Court. Subsequently, after a lapse of several months, he came to know about the order passed by the Court. Thereafter, he applied for a certified copy of the order. After receiving the copy of the order he has approached the local advocate to secure legal opinion. In the meantime, he was suffering from health issues and was unable to approach the advocate to prefer the petition. Upon recovering from the health issues, he sought legal advice and initiated steps to file this petition. In the process, delay of 907 days occurred. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30958 RPFC No. 218 of 2025 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not represented the matter and the order was passed within two months, as such, there is delay in filing the petition. 3. When an application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the inordinate delay of 907 days, the affidavit has to be specific stating when, where, how and on what dates what had happened and each and every day's delay assumes significance in these kinds of matters where there is inordinate delay. Unfortunately, nothing has been stated in the affidavit as to why he is coming before the Court and except the impugned order date, no other date is mentioned, which clearly shows that there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner in coming to the Court after a delay of 907 days. In that view of the matter, I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. 4. Consequently, RPFC is also dismissed. i. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26