Smt Jayamma v. Sri B Parameshwarappa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.118 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O SRI B PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT 9TH MILIKALLU, ANIGERE,YAGATI HOBLI, KADURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, PERMANENTLY R/AT: C/O VEENA PRASAD DEEPAK HOUSE, D.C.M.HOUSE, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS ROAD, DAVANAGERE TOWN-577 002. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VASUNDARA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P. M., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. B. PARAMESHWARAPPA, S/O BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT 9TH MILIKALLU, ANIGERE,YAGATI HOBLI, KADURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR N. R., ADVOCATE) by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS RPFC FILED U/S 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED IN Cr.MIS.NO.101/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CPC FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Ms.Vasundara representing Sri.Siddamallappa.P.M. learned counsel on record for the petitioner is present.

¶2This revision petition is of the year 2018. Ample time and sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner to pursue the matter. However, petitioner, as per the material available on record, failed to evince any interest in the case. Even for furnishing the requisites, petitioner took lot of time. On 05.01.2026, petitioner was directed to file translated copy of the impugned order. Translated copy was not filed. A month later i.e., on

18.02.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file the translated copy of the impugned order. Time was granted. Again, on 04.03.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time and time was granted. Again on

23.03.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time. Time was granted. On 28.07.2026, further time was granted to file the translated copy. To accommodate, time was granted by imposing costs of Rs.1,000/-.

¶3On this day learned counsel who represents the petitioner files a memo along with the translated copy which does not contain any endorsement that the translation is true and correct. Even the signature of learned counsel for the petitioner is not found in the translated copy.

¶4Furthermore, a perusal of the translated copy reveals that the translation is not correct. If that translated copy is taken into consideration, there is every possibility of this Court committing an error in passing

order on merits. The revision petitioner is the one who filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband i.e., the respondent seeking maintenance. The version of the revision petitioner/applicant is that she was thrown out of the house by respondent/husband. However, the translated copy reveals the translation that the respondent/husband was thrown out of the house. Same is found at paragraph 3 of the translated Copy. At para 7, the term 'common-law wife' is used. In the same paragraph, it is mentioned that, "the petitioner, who is in a hurry in his daughter's house, has filed this application". At para 13, the opening sentence is "the applicant has interrogated his daughter as PW 2". These sentences make it clear that the petitioner is very negligent in pursuing the matter.

¶5Despite granting sufficient time and opportunities, the petitioner has not chosen to condut the case diligently. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

there are no grounds to keep the revision petition pending. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2