Dismissed

Shri. Praveen Ashok Gudihal v. Smt. Indria W/O Praveen Gudihal

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024RPFC/100086/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application to condone a significant delay of 517 days in filing a revision petition, deeming the petitioner's claim of poverty insufficient without seeking legal aid. Consequently, the revision petition challenging the maintenance order and other applications were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 rejected; revision petition and other applications stood rejected.

Shri. Praveen Ashok Gudihal Vs Smt. Indria W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12249 RPFC No. 100086 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100086 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI PRAVEEN ASHOK GUDIHAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE AND BUSINESS, R/O: SETTLEMENT 4^TH CROSS, GANGADHAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 029.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SANTOSH NARGUND & SRI SUSHIL M.JADHAV, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT.INDIRA W/O. PRAVEEN GUDIHAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: H.NO.101 BHARATNAGAR, 3^RD CROSS, R.N.SHETTY ROAD, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 024.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

CHANDRAHAS S/O. PRAVEEN GUDIHAL, AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: H.NO.101 BHARATNAGAR, 3^RD CROSS, R.N.SHETTY ROAD, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 024.

¶16

RAJANANDANI D/O. PRAVEEN GUDIHAL, AGE: 03 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: H NO101 BHARATNAGAR, 3^RD CROSS, R.N.SHETTY ROAD, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 024.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED; R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1)

¶18

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.181/2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 23.09.2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12249 RPFC No. 100086 of 2024

¶21

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

There is a delay of 517 days in filing petition. I.A.no.1/2024 is filed for its condonation.

¶24

In affidavit filed in support of application, petitioner has stated thus:

¶25

“3. That, I am very poor and have no source of income and unable to maintain myself including my parents. Because of my poverty I did not file the top noted case within time and hence, there is a delay of 517 days, in filing the top noted petition, as such I pray this Hon’ble Court may be please to condone the delay.”

¶26

Except said material, there is no other reasons stated for condonation of delay. In order to satisfy my conscience, I have gone through impugned order as well as grounds taken in petition.

¶27

Respondents herein appear to have filed application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- for respondent no.1 and Rs.10,000/- each for respondents no.2 and 3. On said

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12249 RPFC No. 100086 of 2024

¶29

petition, notice was issued. Since notice issued was not claimed, petitioner herein did not appear and contest proceedings, he was placed ex parte. Respondent no.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to 20.

¶30

On consideration, Family Court passed order directing petitioner to pay maintenance at rate of Rs.8,000/per month to respondent no.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month each to respondents no.2 and 3. It is seen that respondents had produced record of rights of land holding of petitioner and his father. They had stated that petitioner was earning upto Rs.70,000/- per month. Considering same in light of documents produced, Family Court observed that maintenance of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.3,000/- each would be befitting status of petitioner’s family. Said observation is in light of land holding of petitioner and his father.

¶31

In any case, petitioner is able bodied person Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anuj Garg V/s Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1314 has held an able bodied person cannot claim to be without any

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12249 RPFC No. 100086 of 2024

¶33

source of income and refuse to pay maintenance. In that light, there would be no good ground to interfere with order.

¶34

Insofar as delay, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mool Chandra V/s Union of India and another

¶35

reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1878, it is not length of delay, but cause for delay that would matter application for condonation of delay. However in instant case, except stating that petitioner is poor, there are no other reasons stated even though there is delay of 517 days in filing petition. In case of poverty, petitioner ought to have approached Legal Services Authority for legal aid. Delay appears deliberate or due to negligence rather than due to unavoidable or circumstance beyond his control.

¶36

In view of above, I do not find any good ground

¶37

to allow I.A.no.1/2024. I.A.no.1/2024 stands rejected. Consequently, petition as well as other application stand rejected.

¶38

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶39

CLK_CT-ASC

Shri. Praveen Ashok Gudihal v. Smt. Indria W/O Praveen Gudihal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Praveen Ashok Gudihal v. Smt. Indria W/O Praveen Gudihal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Shankar S/O Mahadev Shindhe Vs Union of India

Sri Satish S/O Mahadev Naik Vs the General Manager

Sri. Gurudev S/O Siddappa Gujanal Vs the State of Karnataka

Basanagoud S/O Ramanagoud Goudar Vs the Karnataka State Open University

Smt. Jaya D/O Parasa Mulladar After Marriage W/O Shivappa Chitageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shilpa W/O. Jagadish Hadapad Vs Sri. Jagadish S/O. Basappa Hadapad