Karnataka High Court
Shri. C. R. Suresh vs Mrs. S. Vijayalakshmi on 11 February, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
CRL.A.No.1998/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1998/2016
BETWEEN:
SHRI C.R. SURESH
S/O. C.N. RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.45
I FLOOR, 5TH CROSS
HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE
BANGALORE - 560 054 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MATHEW P.M. ADVOCATE)
AND:
MRS. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O. C.R.SURESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.45
I FLOOR, 5TH CROSS
HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE
BANGALORE - 560 054 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. BUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE V MMTC ON 30.12.2014 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.312/2011 AND THE FLW ALSO ORDER PASSED BY
THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH
63), BENGALURU DATED 28-10-2016 IN CRL.R.P. NO.510/2015
AND ETC.
CRL.A.No.1998/2016
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
DISPOSAL THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for
condonation of delay and consequently the revision
petition, the petitioner in Crl.Revision Petition No.510/2015
on the file of the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, CCH 63, Bengaluru, has preferred this appeal.
2. The appellant and the respondent were married
in 1990. Out of the said wedlock the couple have two adult
children as on today.
3. Respondent filed Criminal Misc.No.62/2009
before the I ACMM, Bangalore, under Section 12 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(for short "DV Act") alleging domestic violence and seeking
monetary relief, compensation and right of residence.
CRL.A.No.1998/2016
Later, that matter was transferred to 5th MMTC Court
Bengaluru, renumbered as Criminal Misc. No.137/2011.
4. In that case, the trial Court by order dated 4-
7-2009 awarded interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to
the respondent. The appellant challenged that order
before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-
XIV), Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.939/2009.
5. The appellate court disposed of Criminal
Appeal No. 939/2009 on 6-1-2010 holding that the
appellant can file application before the trial Court for
alteration/modification of the said order.
6. Accordingly, the appellant filed application
under Section 25(2) of the D.V. Act, before the trial Court
for modification of the order. The same came to be
dismissed on 11-2-2011. That order has attained finality.
7. Criminal Misc. No.312/2011 was registered
before the trial Court for enforcement of the interim
maintenance awarded. In that matter, the parties were in
CRL.A.No.1998/2016
dispute about the quantum of arrears of interim
maintenance payable. Both the parties filed the memo of
calculation.
8. The Trial court on hearing both sides, by the
order dated 30-12-2014 held that the appellant is liable to
pay Rs.16,39,950/- as arrears of maintenance as on 15-
12-2014. Further, the trial Court issued FLW for recovery
of the said amount.
9. The appellant challenged the said order before
66th Special in Criminal Revision Petition No.510/2015.
There was a delay of 154 days in filing the revision
petition, therefore, the appellant filed I.A. No.2 for
condonation of delay. The Revisional Court on hearing the
parties, by the impugned order, rejected the said
application and consequently, dismissed the Criminal
Revision Petition holding that the delay is not satisfactorily
explained.
10. In his affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2
before the Revisional Court, the appellant contended that
CRL.A.No.1998/2016
his father was aged 90 years and suffering from age
related diseases, he was busy in taking care of his father,
therefore, he could not file the revision petition in time.
The Revisional Court rejected the application on the
ground that nothing was placed to substantiate the said
contentions.
11. Sri. Mathew P.M., learned counsel for appellant
submits that the father of the appellant was staying in his
native place and was taking Ayurvedic treatment,
therefore, he could not produce any material.
12. Smt. Bhushani Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent submits that the appellant's father was staying
in Bangalore only and the grounds urged in the affidavit
were false. She further submits that the Criminal Revision
Petition No. 510/2011 was filed challenging the interim
order, whereas, main matter itself was disposed of on 23-
6-2020. Therefore, the proceedings in Criminal .Revision
Petition No.510/2015 have become infructuous.
CRL.A.No.1998/2016
13. It is no-doubt true that the term "sufficient
reason" mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to
be liberally construed. However, the party seeking
indulgence for condonation of the delay has to satisfy the
Court that he had sufficient reason. The entire explanation
of the appellant to explain the delay was in para 4 of his
affidavit which reads as follows:
"4. That, I my father is aged about 90
years and suffering for old age diseases, being
the duty bound son it was my duty to take care
of him and I have no permanent stay to
residence and been running from one address
to another, due to my personal inconvenient I
was not able to provide necessary information
and documents to my counsel to file the appeal
before this Hon'ble Court."
14. The explanation in the above paragraph is as
bald as possible. First of all, in the said paragraph, it is
not stated that his father stays in his native village. If so
which is the native village is not stated. It is also not
stated that his father was taking Ayurvedic treatment. If
so what is the name of the said Doctor. Therefore, the trial
CRL.A.No.1998/2016
Court was fully justified in holding that the reasons
assigned were very bald and were not acceptable.
15. Secondly, Criminal Revision Petition
No.510/2015 as rightly pointed out arose out of the
interim order passed in Criminal Misc.No.137/2011. The
copy of the final order passed in Criminal
Misc.No.137/2011 on 23-6-2020 is submitted for the
perusal of the Court. The said order shows that the trial
Court disposed of the petition on merits.
16. By that order, the trial Court has granted
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent payable
within three months in addition to the interim
maintenance. During the course of the order, the trial
Court has also observed that, apart from the arrears of
maintenance, having regard to the finding on domestic
violence awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- would be
just. That means to say that the interim maintenance
awarded at the rate of Rs.25,000/- is maintained till the
disposal of the petition.
CRL.A.No.1998/2016
17. At the cost of repetition, it has to be noted that
the appellant has challenged the order of interim
maintenance by filing the appeal and that was remanded
with a direction that he can file application before the trial
Court and seek modification of the same. The application
filed by the appellant for modification also failed. From that
point of view also, the interim maintenance order attained
finality.
18. Further the main matter in
Crl.Misc.No.137/2011 was disposed of with the aforesaid
observations on 23.06.2020. So far the appellant has not
challenged that order. Thus that order has attained finality.
The interim order passed if any is merged with the main
order. From that point of view also, the revision petition
has become infructuous.
19. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, even if
delay was condoned, the chances of the appellant
succeeding in the revision petition is very bleak. The power
CRL.A.No.1998/2016
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay
is discretionary power. Unless such order suffers patent
illegality or perversity, the same cannot be interfered. This
Court does not find patent illegality or perversity in the
impugned order. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs stood
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Tsn/KSR
