Dismissed¶42

Sri Kadir Ahamad a @ Katheer Ahamad v. Smt. Fazila K

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1828/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 289 days delay; I.A.No.1/2025; criminal revision petition dismissed; interim maintenance Rs.3,000/- per month; maintenance to wife and two children; condition precedent interim-maintenance; dispose appeal within three months; comply within two weeks; CRL.RP 1828/2025; Crl. Misc. No.49/2021; Crl. Appeal 1849/2024; JMFC Traffic Court-VI Bengaluru; LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 62); S.397 r/w 401 CrPC; S.438 r/w 442 BNSS; High Court of Karnataka; Justice H.P. Sandesh; medical illness unsupported by evidence; no date of knowledge of conditional order.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 289 days in filing the revision petition is not properly explained and no satisfactory reasons are assigned to condone the delay. ¶41

Sri Kadir Ahamad a @ Katheer Ahamad Vs Smt. Fazila K — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether I.A.No.1/2025 seeking condonation of the delay of 289 days in filing the revision petition should be allowed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 289 days in filing the revision petition is not properly explained and no satisfactory reasons are assigned to condone the delay.

¶41

Key takeaways

The petitioner did not specifically state the date on which he came to know of the conditional order passed by the First Appellate Court.ratio¶36
Although the affidavit asserts medical illness, nothing was placed on record evidencing the petitioner's health condition, undermining the explanation for the delay.ratio¶36
I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed and, consequently, the revision petition itself is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.), Oral Order dated 22 July 2026 in CRL.RP No.1828 of 2025 (CNR KAHC010780082025): Revision petition by Kadir Ahamad A. @ Katheer Ahamad under Sections 397 r/w 401 CrPC (filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS) sought setting aside of the conditional order dated 12/11/2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No.1849/2024 by the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 62), Bengaluru, which had modified the JMFC (Traffic Court-VI) judgment in Crl. Misc. No.49/2021 dated 29/08/2024 to direct Rs.3,000/- per month each to the complainant-wife and two children. The petition failed at the threshold: I.A.No.1/2025 for condonation of 289 days' delay was dismissed because the affidavit neither specified when the petitioner learnt of the conditional order nor produced any record of the claimed medical illness; the delay was held not properly explained. Consequently the revision petition stood dismissed. Directions issued: First Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal within three months upon compliance with the interim order within two weeks, parties and counsel to assist time-bound; payment of interim-maintenance declared a condition precedent to merits consideration.

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37637 CRL.RP No. 1828 of 2025

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010780082025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1828 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI KADIR AHAMAD A. @ KATHEER AHAMAD S/O. ALLABAKSH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31/58 VASANTHA GARDEN, SECOND STREET, AYANAVARAM CHENNAI-600 023.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. FAZILA K., W/O. KADIR AHAMAD A, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶16

SIDDIKA K., D/O KADIR AHAMAD A., AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶17

MR. WUWISE AHAMED K., S/O KADIR AHAMAD A., AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶18

RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:37637 CRL.RP No. 1828 of 2025

¶22

CNR: KAHC010780082025

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.29 7TH CROSS, 6^TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF JUDGEMENT IN CRL. MISC. NO.49 OF 2021 DATED 29/08/2024 PASSED BY HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI) COURT, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.1849/2024 DATED 12/11/2024 BY THE HONBLE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 62), CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU AND STAY THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2025 for condonation of delay of 289 days in filing the revision petition.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. This revision petition is filed against interim order passed by the First Appellate Court, wherein the order of the Trial Court was modified directing to pay Rs.3,000/- each per month to the wife and two children.

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:37637 CRL.RP No. 1828 of 2025

¶32

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CNR: KAHC010780082025

¶35

With regard to the delay of 289 days in filing the revision petition, the reason assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application to condone the delay is that he is suffering from medical illness and taking regular medical treatment and could not able to contact his advocate on time because of his ill health, thereafter he contacted his Trial Court advocate and he suggested him to file the petition within 60 days. Due to his health condition and financial problem, he could not file the revision within limitation period. Immediately, after contacting his advocate, he advised to file revision petition.

¶36

Having taken note of the reasons assigned in the application to condone the delay, the petitioner has not specifically stated as to on what date, he came to know about the conditional order passed by the First Appellate Court and though the petitioner has stated in the affidavit that he was suffering from medical illness, nothing is placed on record with regard to his health condition and this revision petition is filed against the conditional order passed by the First Appellate Court and the delay of 289 days in filing the revision petition is

¶37

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:37637 CRL.RP No. 1828 of 2025

¶40

CNR: KAHC010780082025

¶41

not properly explained and no satisfactory reasons are assigned to condone the delay.

¶42

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed.

¶43

The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months, if interim order is complied within two weeks. The parties and their respective counsels are directed to assist the First Appellate Court in disposal of the case in a time bound period. The payment of interim-maintenance as directed by the First Appellate Court is condition precedent to consider the appeal on merits.

¶44

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri Kadir Ahamad a @ Katheer Ahamad v. Smt. Fazila K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kadir Ahamad a @ Katheer Ahamad v. Smt. Fazila K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Charls Vs the State

Smt Jayanthi Vs M/S Shree Mahalas Traders

Shashikala C Vs Santhosha Kumari

Silicon Technologies Vs M Puttappa

Harun Rashid @ Harun Pasha Vs Special Executive Magistrate and Dcp East Division

Smt Nalini Chandrashkear Vs Sri H P Lokesha