The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25753 CRL.RP No. 372 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 372 OF 2025 …PETITIONER BETWEEN: SMT. NIRMALA Y W/O S C GIRISH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT No. 41/106, 4TH CROSS 38TH MAIN, ROSE GARDEN 6TH PHASE, J P NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 078. (BY SMT. SUSHMITHA K, FOR SRI RAJENDRA K R, ADVOCATES) AND:
Legal Reasoning
SRI S C GIRISH S/O CHIKKALAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS BMTC CONDUCTOR R/AT No. 249, SAMPAHALLI DUDDA HOBLI, GORAVLE POST MANDYA TALUK & DISTICT PIN - 571 405. AND ALSO AT” TOKEN No.9728 DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR BMTC, BENGALURU WEST ZONE Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25753 CRL.RP No. 372 of 2025 HC-KAR DEEPANJALI NAGARA DEPOT No. 16 BENGALURU – 560 026. (BY SRI VASUDEVA IYENGAR K T, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET IN CRL.A.No.796/2023, BEFORE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE DELAY APPLICATION FILED THEREIN AND ALLOW CRL.A.No.796/2023 AS PRAYED BEFORE THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.796/2023 by the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge(CCH- 64), Bengaluru, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 05 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal came to be rejected. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25753 CRL.RP No. 372 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner had filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as “D.V. Act” for brevity) in Crl.Misc.No.36/2022 against the respondent and others. In the said proceedings, IA No.I has been filed by the petitioner against respondent seeking interim maintenance and it came to be dismissed by order dated 08.02.2023. The petitioner has challenged the said order before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.796/2023. There was delay of 105 days in filing the said appeal and therefore, the petitioner had filed IA No.I under Section 05 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. The respondent has choosen to file his statement of objections to the appeal filed under Section 29 of the D.V Act and he has not filed any separate statement of objections to the application filed seeking condonation of delay. The Appellate Court heard - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25753 CRL.RP No. 372 of 2025 HC-KAR counsels of both appellant and respondents and has passed the impugned order rejecting the application filed under Section 05 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that along with application seeking condonation of delay, the petitioner had filed her affidavit and subsequently she filed another affidavit (better affidavit) dated 23.12.2024 along with memo in support of her application filed under Section 05 of the limitation Act. She submits that reasons stated in affidavits filed in support of the application are not denied by respondent by filing statement of objections or counter affidavit. The petitioner has put forth sufficient reasons in para Nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 23.12.2024 wherein it is stated that the respondent has proposed for settlement of the matter and it caused delay in filing the appeal. The Appellate Court has erred in not considering the said - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25753 CRL.RP No. 372 of 2025 HC-KAR aspect, only based on the observations of the trial Court that there are no settlement talks recorded in the trial Court proceedings has passed the impugned order. With these she prays to allow the Criminal Revision Petition, condone the delay and remand the matter to the Appellate Court for considering appeal of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that reasons assigned in two affidavits of the petitioner are not sufficient to condone the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. The trial Court considering the said aspect has rightly passed the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and trial Court records. 7. The petitioner along with her appeal had filed application in IA No.I seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. The said application has been supported by affidavit and subsequently better affidavit has been filed along with memo dated 23.12.2024. In the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25753 CRL.RP No. 372 of 2025 HC-KAR said better affidavit dated 23.10.2024 the petitioner has stated as under; “4. I humbly submit that in between the respondent filed the divorce case before the 5th Addl. Family court, Bengaluru in M C No.3150/2022 in that, the respondent ready for settlement and informed that once for all settle all the matters, so that I believed his words and I was waiting hence I din’t file the above Criminal appeal case. that 5. The respondent have postponed the matter they will saying one or other reasons compromising to settle, according time has been lapsed, they make me to believe for settlement and they have internationally drag the matter for delay they have maturised me to drag the matter, Their after the respondent didn’t stand on his words. Then immediately I arranged to file the above appeal challenging the impugned order.” 8. The said averments made in said affidavits has not been controverted by the respondent by filing his statement of objections or counter affidavit. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that trial Court record does not disclose any settlement of the matter and passed the impugned order. What is averred in para No. 3 of affidavit dated 23.12.2024 is that another matter pending before the Family Court in M.C.No.3150/2022 and there was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25753 CRL.RP No. 372 of 2025 HC-KAR proposal for settlement and therefore, the petitioner has waited and it caused delay. Merely because the trial Court records does not disclose any settlement of the matter is not ground for dismissing the application. Considering averments made in para No. 4 and 5 of the affidavit noted supra, the petitioner has put forth sufficient reasons for condoning the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. Considering the same, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting the application of petitioner seeking condonation of delay requires to be set aside. 9.
Decision
In the result, the following ORDER i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.769/2023 by LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge(CCH-64), Bengaluru dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25753 CRL.RP No. 372 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 05 of the Limitation Act is set aside. iii) The application under Section 05 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court is stands allowed and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Court for deciding Crl.A.No.796/2022 in accordance with law. iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 18.08.2025 without anticipating any Court notice. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31