Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar M. R vs Chethanakumari. G @ Chethana Naveen on 28 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24099
CRL.RP No. 637 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 637 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN KUMAR M.R.,
S/O RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS A DRIVER
CUM CONDUCTOR,
T.NO.18050/1311,
KSRTC, (RURAL DIVISION)
BANNIMANTAPA MYSORE-570 015.
R/A NO.632/B, 14TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, B.M.SHREE NAGARA,
METAGALLI, MYSORE - 570 016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.R. THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
YAMUNA K L CHETHANAKUMARI. G @ CHETHANA NAVEEN,
Location: W/O NAVEEN KUMAR M.R.,
High Court of AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
Karnataka R/A NO.2723/D, 1ST CROSS,
K.G. KOPPAL,
MYSORE - 570 009.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. Y.N. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.05.2017 PASSED
BY IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN
CRL.A.NO.200/2016.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24099
CRL.RP No. 637 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.J.R.Thippeswamy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel for revision
petitioner.
2. Revision petition is filed by the petitioner herein who is
none other the husband of the respondent-wife, who suffered
an order of maintenance from the Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.200/2016 by order dated 30.05.2017, in an appeal
filed by the respondent-wife challenging the order of dismissal
of her petition by the jurisdiction Magistrate in
C.Misc.No.7/2015.
3. There is a delay of 1296 days in filing the revision
petition.
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
considering the appdlication for condonation of delay are as
under:
A petition came to be filed by the respondent-wife under
the provision of the Protection of Women From Domestic
NC: 2024:KHC:24099
Violence Act, 2005 seeking relief under Sections 12, 13, 14, 18,
19, 20, 22 and 23 of the said Act. It is contended that the
husband is a driver-cum-conductor in KSRTC, who married the
respondent-wife and did not take care of her in a proper
manner and she was sent out of the residence. There was also
an allegation with regard to domestic violence. The learned
Trial Magistrate considered the matter on merits and dismissed
the same.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the wife filed an appeal
before the District Court in Crl.A.No.200/2016. In the said case,
the respondent-husband served with notice of appeal and did
not contest the appeal on merits. The learned Judge in the
Appellate Court, after noticing the relevant aspects of the
matter, allowed the appeal and directed the revision petitioner
to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly maintenance and to pay
a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The said order came to
be passed on 30.05.2017. The present revision petition was
filed by the revision petitioner on 16.03.2021 with an
application to condone the delay of 1296 days.
NC: 2024:KHC:24099
6. The application seeking condonation of delay, is
supported by an affidavit. In paragraph No.3 of the affidavit, it
is contented that the petitioner came to know about the result
of the appeal only after he came to know that the Executing
Court had issued the witness summons to the Depot Manager,
Arasikere.
7. He also contended that he was dismissed from the
service and therefore, could not engage counsel to contest the
appeal before the First Appellate Court.
8. The application is opposed by the wife by contending
that till today, not a single penny of maintenance amount is
paid by the husband.
9. In fact, the matter is not yet admitted and in order to
obtain the stay order, a sum of Rs.75,000/- is deposited by the
revision petitioner and no further amount.
10. As on today, a sum of Rs.7.00 lakhs is due as per
respondent-wife towards arrears of maintenance. Therefore,
there is no justification in condoning the delay. Reasons
assigned in the affidavit are also not sufficient. In the absence
NC: 2024:KHC:24099
of relevant details like when exactly came to know about the
date of disposal of the appeal and when did he came to know
about the issuance of the necessary orders by the Executing
Court, affidavit contents are barred and vague in nature to
exercise the discretionary power vested in this Court to
condone the huge delay of 1296 days.
11. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) I.A.No.1/2021 is rejected.
ii) Consequently, the revision petition is also rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CPN
