IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1529 OF 2023 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. HEMAVATHI, W/O R SATHISH, D/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, KAMAKSHIPALYA, NEAR AMBA MAHESHWARI TEMPLE, BANGALORE.

AND ALSO AT NO.38, MIG, 80 FEET ROAD, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, Digitally Signed by BENGLAURU - 560 086.

REKHA R …APPELLANT Location : (BY SMT. PRAJWALA SATHYA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

High Court of Karnataka AND:

SRI. R SATHISH, S/O V K RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.38, MIG, 80 FEET ROAD, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 060.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED IN MC NO.1874/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION

13(1)(iii) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING -

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2023 (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 2,633 days in filing the appeal. The affidavit is sworn by the applicant in support of the aforesaid application in which it is stated as follows:

1. "I have filed the above Misc. First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2013 in M C No.1874/2005 on the file of VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. The detailed averments made in the appeal memo may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit in order to avoid repetition of facts.

2. I submit that the impugned judgment and decree is passed on the sole ground that I did not appear in the case after the mediation settlement. I submit that I was made not to appear before the Hon'ble Court and made to believe that there is nothing to be done after the settlement before the mediation. The reason assigned that there is long separation between me and the respondent is not correct. Even prior to filing of divorce petition, during pendency and even after the decree, myself and respondent were living together, stayed outside city and toured together. The respondent threatened me not to enquire about the divorce petition and if it is enquired she would be killed by giving supari in July - August, 2019. Thereafter, the respondent started totally neglecting me and my son. Thereafter, the enquiry was made and I came to know about the judgment and decree of divorce.

3. I humbly submit that I have no means of livelihood.

With no any other alternative, I had to take shelter along with my son in the house of the parents. I was in fact ill-treated by the respondent and his family members. For the welfare of the children and to maintain the marital relationship, I tolerated all the pinpricks and lived with the respondent. When the petition was filed, it was told to me that it was simply filed to get dowry amount from my parents. A settlement was entered into before the mediation and without reference to the same, the impugned judgment and decree of divorce is passed. The court below has failed to consider the materials on record and has failed to draw proper inference from those materials. The inferences drawn are erroneous.

4. The court below has seriously erred in not considering the alimony either permanently or otherwise. I have no source of income for my survival. With no other alternative, I had to shift to my parents house in 2019.

5. I humbly submit that after I came to know the impugned judgment and decree, I was shocked and did not know what to do. Recently, I have come to know that the respondent has married for the second time and living with the second wife. The responde