Karnataka High Court
Mr Ali Sultan vs Shabana Begum on 22 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32951
RPFC No. 46 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 46 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR.ALI SULTAN
S/O MUNAWAR KHAN,
AGED 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 127,
MOUSQUE ROAD, YARAB NAGAR,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VIREN MICHAEL PERES, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHABANA BEGUM
W/O ALI SULTAN,
AGED 42 YEARS
Digitally signed 2. MISS RIDA ANNAM KHAN
by MEGHA D/O ALI SULTAN (CONTESTED)
MOHAN AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
KARNATAKA AND MOTHER SHABANA BEGUM
RESIDING AT 148, 3RD FLOOR
1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MINHAS NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 078
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 IS MINOR- REP. BY R1)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS
ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC
NO.580/2019 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED
UNDER ORDER 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32951
RPFC No. 46 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the orders passed on Crl.Misc.No.580/2019
dated 16.09.2023 by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru, the husband is before this court questioning the
order of maintenance of an amount Rs.15,000/- each to
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is granted by the family court.
2. Both the parties are referred to as husband and wife
for the sake of convenience.
3. This revision petition is filed with a delay of 431 days.
This court has perused the I.A. that is filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay. It is stated
that he had received summons in Crl.Misc.No.580/2019 on the
file of the VI Addl. Family Court, Bangalore under Section 125
of the Cr.P.C and his advocate has filed vakalath on 18.01.2020
and next date was posted to 03.03.2020. His advocate in the
trial court had informed him that he would take care of the case
and nothing to worry. Thereafter he did not receive any call
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:32951
RPFC No. 46 of 2025
HC-KAR
from his advocate due to COVID for two years and thereafter
he received the notice in Crl.Misc.No.536/2024. Then he
approached the old advocate who was silent and told him he
does not want to handle the case and hence he has approached
the new advocate. Looking at the summons, he came to know
about the order that is passed by the court. Then he
approached the Advocate and after obtaining the necessary
documents he has filed this petition and in the process a delay
of 431 is occurred. On the last occasion when this court had
pointed out that the reasons are not stated where,when and
how he come to know nothing has been mentioned. Now a
supplementary affidavit is filed before the court wherein it is
stated that they have received the summons for recovery of the
maintenance amount on 07.08.2024 and appeared in
Crl.Misc.No.536/2024 on 08.08.2024 and engaged the
advocate. Then on 26.09.2024 the matter was posted for
mediation and thereafter he did not receive any notice. He
received a call on 03.02.2025 that arrest warrant is issued.
Thereafter he has obtained the papers and filed this petition.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:32951
RPFC No. 46 of 2025
HC-KAR
4.Learned counsel appearing for the husband has
submitted on the merits of the matter stating that it is difficult
for the petitioner to pay the amount and further it is an exparte
order and family court has failed to consider the financial
capacity of the husband. Hence the impugned order may be set
aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife has
filed her objections and submits that there are no valid reasons
to condone the inordinate delay 431 days. It is submitted that
the petitioner/husband only with an intention to avoid payment
of maintenance to the wife has deliberately not appeared
before the court and coming up with these kind of IAs even the
affidavit filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the
supplementary affidavit that is filed, do not disclose the correct
reasons and basing on those reasons, the delay cannot be
condoned.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. As rightly argued by the
learned counsel for the respondent, the reasons that are stated
in support of the IA, do not contain any valid reasons to
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:32951
RPFC No. 46 of 2025
HC-KAR
condone the inordinate delay of 431 days. When an affidavit is
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly in the
cases of inordinate delay, then the party has to explain the
reason for the said delay and particularly the each day’s delay
has to be explained by the party. Admittedly in this case, no
such explanation is forthcoming. As this is involving the
financial implication where the husband has to pay Rs.30,000/-
to both the wife and the child and balancing the interest of both
the parties, this court deems it appropriate to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The impugned order passed in Crl.Misc.No.580/
2019 dated 16.09.2023 by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge,
Family Court, Benglauru is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the family court.
ii. The delay of 431 days is condoned on the condition
that the petitioner/husband shall pay an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/wife within a
period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the
copy of the order.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:32951
RPFC No. 46 of 2025HC-KAR
iii. If the petitioner fails to pay Rs.1,00,000/- costs as
imposed by this court the original order, i.e. the
order impugned will come into force and the wife is
at liberty to recover the amount.
iv. The parties without further notice shall appear
before the family court on 25.09.2025. By the time
Rs.1,00,000/- is not paid by the petitioner, the
court shall not proceed and automatically the order
impugned dated 16.09.2023 will be revived and the
wife is at liberty to execute.
v. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife shall
furnish the Bank Account details to the Learned
counsel for the petitioner by tomorrow.
vi. Accordingly, the RPFC is Allowed.
vii. All pending I.As., in the RPFC shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGETS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7