- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3734 CRL.RP No. 100285 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100285 OF 2024 [397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SHRI SANGAM S/O. TOPANNA YALLURKAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.259, UPPAR GALLI, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARASWATI W/O. SANGAM YALLURKAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. EWS-360, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. KUMAR SAMARTH S/O. SANGAM YALLURKAR, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. EWS-360, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI, SINCE MINOR R/BY. RESPONDENT NO.1 AS NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN. … RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2-NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH UNDER SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2024 AND 18.06.2024 PASSED IN THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 310/2023, BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, WHICH WAS FILED UNDER SECTION 29 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT-2005, (ANNEXURE-A) AND RESTORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.310/2023, TO ITS ORIGINAL FILE. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.25 14:30:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3734 CRL.RP No. 100285 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment/order dated 18.06.2024 by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (‘Appellate Court’, for short) in Crl.A.no.310/2023, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Deepak S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, respondents filed Crl.Misc.no.54/2019 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short), alleging that she married petitioner on 06.05.2007 at Belagavi as per Hindu Customs and had two children. She stated, petitioner was a Physiotherapist earning more than Rs.50,000/- p.m. and owned immovable properties, but addicted to vices. Though she was a tolerant and patient wife, he was defamatory, vulgar, violent and abusive with her. During initial period of matrimony, they resided together with his mother and led normal marital life. After petitioner’s sister joined them, they began abusing her. Even though she had borrowed money from her family and raised hand loans and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3734 CRL.RP No. 100285 of 2024 kept matrimonial home under good repair, she was thrown out by petitioner’s mother and sister. 3. At that time, petitioner had got her to rent a house, falsely promising to take care of expenses and forcing to work as housemaid to make ends meet. While she bore burden of providing for children’s education, health etc., petitioner spent lavishly on unnecessary things. And whenever she insisted him to stop wasteful expenditure, he threaten her with lodging false complaint and also got so abusive and violent, that she had to escape from house to save herself. Advice from well-wishers did not stop his cruel behavior. Out of fear and pressure from his relatives, she was forced not to file complaint and also gave incorrect information to avoid registration of ‘MLC’ at Civil Hospital, Belagavi. As petitioner and his family continued to beat her, she bore it at peril to her life and for peace in her marriage. It was alleged that petitioner, his mother and sister had snatched her gold and ornaments she got as Stree Dhana. And that by giving earnings to his mother and sister and spending on himself, petitioner forced her to work as housemaid to make ends meet. But, he hurled abuses standing in front of houses where she worked as maid and had willfully - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3734 CRL.RP No. 100285 of 2024 withdrew from her company and refused to maintain her and children. He also stole her daughter’s undergarments and sold them on street. 4. Under above circumstances, where petitioner with income of more than Rs.50,000/- p.m., owning house in Khasbag, plots, fixed deposits, vehicles etc., had not only failed and neglected to maintain wife and children but also harassed and physically and mentally abused her causing her marriage to completely break down, she was constrained to file petition for relief of separate residence, monetary relief, order of protection, damages and maintenance etc. 5. It was submitted, after appearance, petitioner had opposed petition. In said petition, she had filed application under Section 23 (2) of DV Act for interim maintenance. Under order dated 31.07.2023, trial Court allowed application and directed to petitioner to pay interim maintenance to each of respondent and children. 6. Aggrieved petitioner filed Crl.A.no.310/2023 on 08.11.2023 urging various grounds. As there was delay of 2 months 8 days, an application for condonation was filed under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3734 CRL.RP No. 100285 of 2024 Section 5 of Limitation Act. Same was allowed on 06.06.2024, subject to deposit of 50% of balance interim maintenance within 10 days, which was too onerous. Thereafter, only on ground that interim order was not complied, appeal came to be dismissed. It was submitted, impugned order was contrary to law and unsustainable. 7. It was submitted, order of interim maintenance was unsustainable, having been filed after petitioner had filed M.C.no.450/2018 for restitution of conjugal rights, petition as well as application under DV Act was only to harass petitioner and without any basis to establish petitioner had income of more than Rs.50,000/- p.m. It was further submitted petitioner was physical disabled person and earning from physiotherapy. Under such circumstances, imposition of condition of deposit amounted to denial of opportunity to challenge order of interim maintenance. Therefore, order passed by Appellate Court was contrary to law. On above grounds sought for allowing petition. 8. On other hand, respondents are served unrepresented. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3734 CRL.RP No. 100285 of 2024 10. From above, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether impugned order passed by Appellate Courts call for interference?” 11. In this petition, petitioner is challenging order passed by Appellate Court dismissing appeal for failure of petitioner- appellant to comply with condition imposed for condonation of delay. 12. Petitioner does not dispute that Crl.A.no.310/2023 was filed with delay of 2 months 8 days. While condoning same, Appellate Court had imposed condition for deposit of 50% of arrears of maintenance within 10 days. Even legality of said order is not in question. Only order dismissing appeal after petitioner apparently refused to comply with condition for deposit, is under challenge. 13. While it would not be hard to fathom, reason for trial Court ordering interim maintenance, as there was no dispute about petitioner’s marriage with respondent no.1 and they having children and petitioner being qualified physiotherapist while respondent no.1 claiming to be surviving by working as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3734 CRL.RP No. 100285 of 2024 maid and about possibility of petitioner preferring this revision in order to dilate proceedings, by urging various grounds, ratio laid down in case of Vedabai v. Shantharam Baburao Patil, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2582, for condonation of delay requires to be taken into account: “5. In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case, no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The court has to exercise the discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression “sufficient cause”, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. In our view in this case, the approach of the learned Additional District Judge is wholly erroneous and his order is unsustainable. It is evident that the discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is exercised by the Additional District Judge in contravention of the law laid down by this Court, that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction, in a catena of decisions (see State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality [(1972) 1 SCC 366] and Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Sudha Rani Debi [(1978) 2 SCC 116] ). The High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC failed to correct the jurisdictional error of the appellate court.” 14. In light of above observations, whether for delay of 2 months and 8 days, appellate Court was justified in imposing - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3734 CRL.RP No. 100285 of 2024 condition of deposit of 50% of arrears of interim maintenance that too within a period of 10 days, would require consideration. When mandate is to be liberal and condone delay unconditionally and to impose costs/conditions only where some amount of negligence is attributable to appellant, appellate Court herein imposed condition of deposit of 50% of arrears of maintenance for condonation of delay, and thereafter dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with said condition, would require to be set-aside. Under above circumstances, it would be appropriate to permit petitioner to comply with condition within specific period and direct Appellate Court to decide Appeal on merits but by issuing appropriate directions as would protect interests of complainant in avoiding further delay. Thus, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Hence, following: ORDER 1. Revision petition is allowed in part, impugned order dated 18.06.2024 passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.no.310/2023, is set aside. 2. Consequently, Crl.A.no.310/2023, is restored to file. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3734 CRL.RP No. 100285 of 2024 3. Since only petitioner is represented, he is directed to appear before Appellate Court on 24.03.2025 without awaiting any fresh notice. 4. Thereafter Appellate Court is directed to issue notice to respondents/complainants and proceed to dispose of appeal on merits as early as possible within an outer limit of four months. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40