- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26720 RPFC No. 211 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 211 OF 2024 BETWEEN: PRASHANTH D’SOUZA @ PRASAD S/O LATE ANTONY D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. BEEDI HOUSE, CELINE COMPOUND, JEPPINAMOGURU VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-575 007 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: MS. PAZIA JANINE D’SOUZA D/O PRASHANTH D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/AT PEREIRA VILLA, NEAR FERAR CHURCH, MOODPERAR POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574 166 REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN / MOTHER MS. JANET MARY D’SOUZA R/ AT PEREIRA VILLA NEAR FERAR CHURCH, MOODPERAR POST, MANGALURU TALUK -574 166. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2- MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:23.11.2021 PASSED IN Crl. MISC NO.26/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26720 RPFC No. 211 of 2024 MANGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE 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 The present RPFC is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in Crl.Misc.No.26/2017 dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K. Mangaluru, the husband is before this court. 2. Both the parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3.The RPFC is filed with delay of 568 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and an affidavit is filed. It is stated that the respondent wherein had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the trial Court for maintenance wherein the mother of the respondent obtained a decree of divorce on 29.10.2013 in MC.No.92/2013. In the said decree it is observed that the petitioner is entitled for visitation rights to see the child once in a month for an hour. After obtaining the decree the mother had shifted to abroad, married again and started to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26720 RPFC No. 211 of 2024 lead her family life at Goa without providing any visitation to the petitioner till today and the petitioner had approached the courts seeking custody of the child in G & WC.No.10/2015 and the same was dismissed. Against that an appeal as filed before this court and the same is pending for consideration in MFA. No.546/2020. It is also stated that the respondent's mother filed application without complying the conditions imposed in decree of divorce seeking maintenance and the same was allowed. The respondent/mother filed application seeking maintenance to the child without complying the condition imposed in decree of divorce and the same was allowed without considering these facts, which is very much higher sided. Further the respondent had filed a petition for execution in Crl.Misc.No.38/2022. In the said proceedings the petitioner had paid Rs.2,41,000/-. It is stated that he is unable to mobilise such a huge amount every month. Hence he is constrained to file present petition as there is no other remedy. It is stated that he has tried to comply the condition imposed by trial court by paying the maintenance at Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs.2,41,000/-. Because of the financial difficulties he is unable to challenge the order immediately and for the well being of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26720 RPFC No. 211 of 2024 child he had tried to mobilize the funds. In spite of all efforts, he could not pay the entire amount ordered by the trial court which is very much on the higher side, hence he filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the amount and due to financial crisis, he is not in a position to file a case. As such, he himself could not come to the court immediately. It is stated that the mother has failed to give visitation to the father and she has no respect to the orders of the court, as such she is not entitled for any relief. 5. Learned counsel appearing to the respondent/wife has filed his objections to the petition and it is stated that when an application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, there is an inordinate delay of 568 days, the petitioner has to state the reason for such delay and the reason for every day's delay has to be explained as such said delay of 568 days cannot be condoned. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26720 RPFC No. 211 of 2024 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This case is filed with a delay 568 days. When an I.A. is filed seeking condonation of delay the petitioner should have explained to the court why the delay has occurred. The reasons stated by the petitioner are follows: i. The wife is not providing visitation to the husband. ii. Father is not in a position to pay the amount and his financial position is not good enough to approach the court, hence there is delay. None of the reasons that are stated by the petitioner can be the reasons to condone the delay. If a party after 10 years from the date of passing of the order feels that he is not able to pay the maintenance as per the judgment passed by the court and files an appeal/revision to set aside the order with a delay that cannot be a reason for the court to condone the delay. None of the reasons stated in the condonation petition are not convincing and cannot be the reasons for condoning the delay in filing the present petition. 7. In the light of the above discussion, this court is passing the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26720 RPFC No. 211 of 2024 ORDER i. I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, RPFC is also dismissed. ii. All pending I.As., in the RPFC shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38