IN 'I'i:¥'.B HIGH COURT OF IGXRNJKTAJCR, IANGALORB
DPcTED"l"l'II3 THE 9" DAY 01' APRIL 2908
EEFOHE
'PHI HONHILI MR. JUSTICE N.lC.?A'l'1Ia
mrxszon 1»:-rrrxon ma: LY counw No.21/zoos
BETWEEN
_._.._.u
CUURT
I3 RUDN'LY'0L
Sf!) SIIIIIAYYA IULLLIHATH
2'-.1'.-SE9 3,399? 46
121121152 TEHPDRARY HATER SUPPLIER
Rm TEE! me':
31 JPAPUR . . . PETITIIONER
(B? an: naanuhna c nsaax Assocxamnsa
an? saoaamnxvx %
W30 RAJASHMRI-IRRAYYR 9 RIJIJRRYYA
Assn anon? no YEARS
DEE H H
nxo aannuaann. nxaarun 536101
KBIRTZI RAJ}! ,
1'
3:6 %:'*ui'5':'~l'a"-.':%.Pur':':".'."-'i 5
N33]! ABOUT 16 YEARS
fififi F ii 'I"'fifiK
RIO JRILANAGAR, BIJAPUR 58fi1Cl1
Pnflfih
DID RAJASHEIGRRAYVT. 9 RUHRRYYA
24.15135 ABOEJT 10 '(E338
CIGC H 1-! WORK
.'?..*".3 £.T.3-?.L:.'-.."*!.1.f.§.l.R;
BI JAPUR 58 6161 . . . REIIPONIIENTS
THIS RPFC I8 FILED U/3 19 ('ll OF THE FPoMIla"l'
15346 Fu??sI%i'$'P 5%? -3%.'-BEE-53%!' 3%.'-'E
UT. 13. 9. OT PASSED IN CR1 JIIS NO. 293l05 ON THE
F1 {:3 G? '!'.'.~.'.'¥ JLIEE; 11'!'-.5!-!IL'!' GQQRT, BIJAPUR, PARTLY
RLLOWING THE PETITION FILED UIS 125 O1" CRPC.
'THIS El.P.E'.C. COMING ON FDR ORDERS THIS DAY,
._.__.... - nun -nu.-nu
HE CfiiJ'F'.'i' mum 'i"r:"£ I-'GL1'.-G¥'I%€G=
Tha petitions: questioning the correctness
at the gran: qntgq LQEQQZQDT passed in CRL.M18c.
ne.293:2ee¢ .; the Presiding 9;:_cg;, Egnily
cauru at Eijapur, presented the instant ..xisie"
Patitian Family flaunt slang with In na.1;2eee In:
candanatian of' delay of 55 days in filing fhi
Revision Petition.
a "nerd the igaznad cqunsal appearing for
:5
it
'El
III
:1-
[-1.
tr
1.1.
{I
:3
ll
1'!
<3
:3
9-4
in
5!
I:
'4
'N.
I0
I!)
13
in
It
:1
ll
II
|.-I
II
43
an
:3
Ir!'
.3"
10
3. Along with the petition, the counsel
appearing for thn petitioner has filed an
mzsidnnit nigng with IA Ho.1!2003 for conuonation
ax aging at 55 an"! in iiiing the Envision
-,_
Fatitian éaamily caurt}. The ceunsel eggenring
far the pififianir has iiplainad the dais" in
para 1 6. 2 of the affidavit dated 5.2.2008
stating that he was kind ridden and was unable to
move out and he was taking treatment from
31.7.2007 and his treatment was continuous.
Under the circumstance, it was not possible tor
him to cantact his counsel. By the time, he
rculd =.-.1! tn Iscsntntst his counsel, the judgment
deliberate but bonafid-A one. as a result, hi
would not 11.1: this Roviaion Petition in time.
Thereafter he: riled the above Revision petition
along with tn: IA No.1/2003 praying to condone
the delay in tiling the patitian.
«I. Hawawr, in the intnront at juatica, I
have gone through the arms: plane! by the Family
Gaunt, Bijapur. an perusal or the Intorlocutory
agplieetien ziinri ninng with the arridavit dated
Anne, .-and Jter ..1.a.Lus.tir_:n nu: the 9:33. and
fifiéumantarf evidence adduced and graduate. and
other ralavani: matiriil "uriilahla an racers, it
reveals that the petitioner has not explained the
delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reasons.
The statement made in para 1 5 2 or the arridevit
done not inspire the confidence at this count to
condono the delay. Therefore, In No.1l200B is
liablo to ho dismissed as mieconooived.
5, Euxther, on.gerusa1 of the impugned order
passed H" the Family Q-nnt, fiijnpng, and also on
-'4
that the petitioner in W fuif' as 3 enter
supplier at Taiikoto. Town fiunicipii eoun*i', on
permanent bneie. Taking into consideration the
hardship caused to the respondents, the
petitioner deliberately and intentionally
neglected and not taken care or the first
respondent: nor the respondent: 2 5 3 being the
minor children. The court below. taking into the
gragmatio approach to meet the any to day
ongenson nno gino bearing in mind the escalation
in the cost _£ eenentin; nomnonitinn and status
or tho getting in the .re2 along with otho:
salary or the petitioner, by assigning cogent
reasons in para 15 or the impugned order.
allowifiéés
determined by way of maintenance at the
A
rato of Rs:€,OO0!- per month and at the rate or
ns.75w- such to the respondents 2 a 3. The said
reasoning oven for determining the amount of
maintenance is just and reasonable. Hence, I do
not rind any senor -.1: ss–it;-es-1r-ness on
1 4 4 , allowances
u”araasona.*.s..a=noss in iixing the -t~/-~=~— …,’ 9.2-; oi’
A’,
miintoninr:-i to than ffifififififiifitfi. The isatitionar
he not made out any good ground to entertain the
Revision Petition Family Court. In the light or
the facts and circumstances oi’ the case as stated
shove, the Revision Petition Family court filed
by tho petition is liable ‘ to be dismissed on the
ground at’ delay and Inches.
Accordingly, In Ilo.1l2008 is dismissed.
consequently, R.P.F.C. also dismissed on merits.
P1′
Sd/-
Iudge