- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11950-DB RP No. 100161 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO.100161 OF 2024 IN MFA NO.101527 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. POOJA @ GEETHA W/O. B. CHARANRAJ D/O. PAMPANAGOUDA AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SHAILGANURU VILLAGE, TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. B. CHARANRAJ S/O. NEELAKANTA GOUDA AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. SHAILGANURU VILLAGE, TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. VIDYAVATI M. KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.08.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN MFA NO.101527/2023 & ETC.,. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.09.17 13:00:35 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11950-DB RP No. 100161 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This review petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 passed in MFA.No.101527/2023 (MC), whereby the said appeal filed by the respondent/husband against the review petitioner/wife was allowed by this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of material on record will indicate that the review petitioner is the wife of respondent, their marriage having been solemnized on 21.05.2017. The respondent/husband instituted matrimonial proceedings in MAT.No.14/2019 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari sitting at Siruguppa1 seeking dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In this context, it is relevant to state that the review petitioner/wife did not contest the petition and remained ex parte, despite which, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the 1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court” for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11950-DB RP No. 100161 of 2024 impugned judgment and decree dismissing the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband. 4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the divorce petition filed by him, respondent/husband preferred MFA.No.101527/2023, in which also, the review petitioner – wife did not enter appearance and despite notice having been served upon her, she chose to remain unrepresented. Under these circumstances, this Court proceeded to dispose of the aforesaid MFA.No.101527/2023 vide final order by noticing that the review petitioner/wife had remained ex parte and did not contest the proceedings both before the Trial Court and before this Court and the pleadings and evidence of the respondent/husband remained unchallenged and un-impeached and un-controverted by the review petitioner – wife. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent – husband and granted a decree for divorce against the review petitioner. 5. Subsequently, after lapse of more than one year, the review petitioner has preferred the present review petition inter alia seeking condonation of delay of 380 days in filing the review - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11950-DB RP No. 100161 of 2024 petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated at paragraph Nos.4 to 6 as under: “4. I submit that matter was listed on 20.4.2023 for orders and this Hon'ble court was pleased to issue notice to respondent and in meanwhile directed appellant to comply with office objection. Again the matter was listed on 17.8.2023 for compliance of office objection on that day sole respondent served but un represented and the matter was adjourned to next day on 18.8.2023 on the same day with permission of court counsel for appellant has complied with the office objection and matter was heard on merits by holding respondents was served. This Hon'ble court was pleased to allow the appeal filed by husband and decree of divorce was granted. 5. It is submitted that the matter was heard in my absence I filed vakalath on 21.9.2023. It was only when our advocate has checked the status of case after filing of vakalath, advocate for revision petitioner got to know about the disposal of case. Hence the matter was disposal off in my absence. Hence the matter required to be heard. 6. It is submitted that when our advocate got to know about disposal of case he immediately intimated me and advised to file review petition. I am suffering from high fever and it was only after my recovery and after discussion with elders of family I came over to Dharwad and filed present petitioner.” 6. In our considered opinion, neither valid nor sufficient grounds have been made out in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, so as to enable this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11950-DB RP No. 100161 of 2024 Court to condone the long and inordinate delay and laches of 380 days in preferring the review petition. It is relevant to state that, it is well settled, while considering the application for condonation of delay, it is not the length of delay, but the cause shown by review petitioner seeking condonation of delay; as noticed above, the grounds and contentions urged in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay do not make out valid and sufficient cause so as to enable this Court to condone the delay of 380 days in preferring the review petition. 7. 7. It is also pertinent to note that the review petitioner herein who is the wife of respondent neither contested the proceeding before the Trial Court nor before this Court; it is submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the review petitioner has filed proceedings for maintenance, alimony etc., before the Trial Court and the orders passed by this Court should not come in the way of the review petitioner agitating her rights in the said maintenance, alimony proceedings. 8. The said submission is placed on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11950-DB RP No. 100161 of 2024 9. It is needless to state that by the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by this Court in MFA.No.101527/2023, which is sought to be reviewed in the present petition, all that this Court has done is grant / pass a decree for divorce in favour of the respondent/husband against the review petitioner/wife. It is therefore clear that this order will clearly not come in the way of the petitioner/wife agitating her rights to seek maintenance, alimony etc., by taking recourse to such remedies as available in law including prosecuting proceedings already instituted by her. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the final order dated 18.08.2023 passed in MFA.101527/2023 and the review petition deserves to be disposed of accordingly. 10. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER 1. I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in preferring the review petition is hereby dismissed. 2. The review petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the final order dated 18.08.2023 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11950-DB RP No. 100161 of 2024 passed by this Court in MFA.No.101527/2023 on merits also by confirming the order under review. 3. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the review petitioner/wife to ventilate her grievances and to agitate her rights and also take recourse to such remedies as available in law in the pending proceedings for maintenance and alimony and also institute such appropriate proceedings in this regard before the any Courts / Forum and all such proceedings shall be decided by the respective Courts / Forum in accordance with law without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded by us in the present order of our final order dated 18.03.2023 passed in MFA.No.101527/2023. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (G. BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK/EM, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6