- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27190 RPFC No. 73 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.73 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. SANTOSH M. @ SIDDAPPAJI, S/O MARISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, EARLIER R/AT C/O S FRANCIS XAVIER, NO.1131, RENUKADEVI BLOCK, K. N. PURA, MYSURU-570007. PRESENTLY R/AT KUDERU VILLAGE, CHAMARANAGAR TALUK, AND DISRICT-571313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RAJAMANI @ NANDINI M., D/O M. MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT CHOWHALLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571124. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27190 RPFC No. 73 of 2020 THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MIS.NO.741/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Sri.Nanjunda Swamy N., learned counsel for the petitioner is present. No representation on respondent's side on call. 2. By Order dated 30.07.2021 both parties were directed to file affidavits in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha ([2021] 2 SCC 324). However, till now such affidavits are not filed. Learned counsel states that petitioner is in jail and therefore petitioner could not file such an affidavit. No material on record which shows the date on which petitioner was taken into custody and that he is still in jail. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27190 RPFC No. 73 of 2020 3. Number of opportunities were given since 2021 to facilitate the petitioner to pursue the matter. However, he did not do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not ready to argue the case and submit his contentions. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to grant any further time. 4. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30