- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35740 RPFC No. 21 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 21 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. PRASHANTHA SHIMPI S/O VIVEKANAND SHIMPI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: PVT. JOB, R/O JYOTHIBA VEERABHADRESHWARA NAGARN, BEHIND J.S.S.COLLEGE, VIDHYAGIRI, DHARWAD-580 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHAMED GUFRAN N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHRUTHI PRASHANTHA SHIMPI W/O PRASHANTHA SHIMPI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE. 2. MASTER ATHARVA.P.S S/O PRASHANTHA SHIMPI, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O OPPOSITE JAIN TEMPLE, NADUVALAPETE, HARIHARA-577601. (NOTE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1) …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R2 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35740 RPFC No. 21 of 2025 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2024 PASSED IN CRI.MIS.NO.303/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 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 Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.303/2023 dated 10.06.2024 by the Judge, Family Court, Davanagere, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the son, the petitioner/husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the Family Court had not given enough opportunity to him and the Family Court had set him ex-parte though he has appeared and passed the impugned order. It is submitted that he has appeared before the Family Court and sought time for engaging an advocate and finally when the matter came up on 24.04.2024, the Court set him ex-parte and passed this order. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35740 RPFC No. 21 of 2025 It is submitted that the Family Court has passed an order within nine months from the date of appearance and without giving a reasonable opportunity Court had passed the order. It is submitted that Family Court ought to have given reasonable opportunity and he had not appeared before the Court for nine months as the compromise talks were going on. It is also submitted that no documents are filed on behalf of the respondents and there is no justification on the part of the Court in setting the petitioner ex-parte and passing an ex-parte order by granting the maintenance. Learned counsel submits that a reasonable opportunity may be given to the petitioner and the order may be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the Family Court so that a reasonable order can be passed. 4. Though notice is served on the respondents, there is no representation on behalf of them. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The husband had entered appearance on 02.09.2023. Thereafter, the matter came up on 29.09.2023, 05.10.2023, 25.10.2023, 17.11.2023, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35740 RPFC No. 21 of 2025 21.12.2024, 23.01.2024 and 24.04.2024. On 24.04.2024, the husband was placed ex-parte. The reasons that are stated for not filing the statement of objections before the Court is that the compromise talks were going on. This Court is not able to appreciate this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the matter is being settled between the parties, there wouldn't have been representation on behalf of the wife also. After the order is passed on 10.06.2024, he comes up before this Court in the month of January 2025. When he was set ex-parte, even that ex-parte order was not questioned by him at the earliest. All these show the conduct of the litigant, who was not vigilant in prosecuting the matter. The Court shall never come to the rescue of a litigant who is not vigilant. When the petitioner has taken the process of law for granted and now, without a valid reason, he comes before this Court and seeks to set aside this order. In this routine manner, if the orders passed by the Family Courts are set aside, there is no sanctity to the orders. Hence, this Court do not find any reasons to set aside the order passed by the Family Court wherein the petitioner was set ex-parte as there are no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35740 RPFC No. 21 of 2025 bonafides on the part of the petitioner. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13