- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36267 RPFC No. 139 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.139 OF 2025 BETWEEN: S. GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O N. SUBBAIAH, R/AT NO.7, 4TH CROSS JAGAJEEVANRAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 018 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAYUR M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. R. CHINNASWAMY MANOHAR., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. K MAMATHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O S. GOPINATH, R/AT RAVI TEJA NILAYA, VARASIDDHI VINAYAKA TEMPLE ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHASKARA TEJASWINI, ADVOCATE FOR MS. POOJA V., ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN Crl. Misc NO.100/2016, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE MAINTENANCE PETITION FILED THEREIN BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND b) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS STATED ABOVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36267 RPFC No. 139 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.100/2016 dated 08.09.2023 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, whereby the Family Court had granted interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.4,000/- p.m. and later the Family Court had granted monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of the petition i.e. 15.02.2016 to the wife during her life time or till she becomes disentitled to received the maintenance, the husband is before this Court with a delay of 529 days. 2. It is stated that the husband has also filed a divorce petition and the divorce was granted by the Family Court in MC No.3332/2016 dated 04.10.2023. It is stated that he is suffering from diabetes and other ailments as such he could not contact the advocate. In the process, a delay of 529 days has occurred. It is submitted that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton. Unless a fair opportunity is granted to the petitioner, it would cause a lot of hardship to the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36267 RPFC No. 139 of 2025 3. The respondent/wife has filed the objections and the learned counsel appearing to the respondent/wife submits that there are no reasonable grounds to condone the delay of 529 days in filing the revision petition. It is submitted that when the husband is prosecuting the execution petition, there are no grounds and no document is placed before this Court showing the incapacity of the husband to contact the advocate. It is submitted that there are no grounds made out to condone the delay and the same may be dismissed. 4. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The application is filed to condone the delay of 529 days in filing the revision petition that is almost 2 years. When the application is filed for condonation of delay rather an inordinate delay the claimant has to make out a case why he could not come before the Court within the reasonable time. The reasons that are stated by the petitioner/husband seeking condonation of the delay cannot be the grounds for this Court to condone the delay and the Court cannot permit the litigant to come to the Court whenever he wants to come. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to give an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36267 RPFC No. 139 of 2025 opportunity to the parties by condoning the delay provided reasonable grounds are made out. In the considered opinion of this Court, there are no grounds to condone the delay. 5. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 filed to condone the delay of 529 days in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, RPFC.No.139/2025 is dismissed. All I.As., in this revision petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9