Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P Sree Sudha, J
SRI AVIN CHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
SMT. USHA KUMARI @ USHA PILLAI – Respondent
RPFC No. 216 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravindra P.
For the Respondents: James P. Arun Kumar
A revision petition challenging an original maintenance order is not maintainable if the petitioner, after seeking and failing to obtain modification in the lower court, attempts to challenge the original order with significant unexplained delay instead of the subsequent dismissal order.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a revision petition under S.19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging an order passed under S.125 of the Cr.P.C. directing the payment of Rs.10,000/- per month for the maintenance of his daughter. The petitioner contended that the order was passed ex-parte without providing an opportunity for a hearing and sought condonation of a 556-day delay in filing the petition. The primary issue was whether the revision petition was maintainable given the procedural history, including a previous withdrawn revision petition and a subsequent dismissed modification application in the Family Court. The court observed that the petitioner, after being granted liberty to approach the Family Court for modification and having that application dismissed in Crl.Misc.No.25/2025, attempted to challenge the original order instead of the subsequent dismissal, rendering the petition not maintainable. Accordingly, both the application for condonation of delay and the revision petition are dismissed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to an ex-parte maintenance order and justification for the delay in filing the revision petition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. maintainability of a revision petition against an original order after a subsequent modification application has been dismissed by the lower court. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and the accompanying revision petition. (Para 8) |
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 216 OF 2025
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2023 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO. 641/2018 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the arguments of both sides.
2. This RPFC is filed by the petitioner/husband seeking to set aside the order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.641/2018. The petitioner has also filed an application seeking condonation of a delay of 556 days in filing the revision petition.
3. It is stated that the Family Court directed him to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of his daughter till her marriage. He contends that the order was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing. He further states that he borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to pay his daughter educational expesnes and entrusted the matter to his counsel after paying the requisite legal fees.
4. He further submits that he had no opportunity to challenge the ex-parte order. Earlier, he had approached this Court by filing RPFC No.263/2024 seeking the same relief. However, this Court permitted him to approach the Family Court.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Family Court by filing Crl. Misc. No.25/2025. Thereafter, on the advice of his counsel, he filed the present revision petition. Thus, there is a delay of 556 days, i.e., one year and six months, in filing the present RPFC.
6. In the objections filed by the respondent/wife, it is contended that Crl.Misc. No.641/2018 was originally filed by her seeking maintenance for the minor child. By order dated 21.10.2023, the Family Court allowed the petition.
7. The petitioner/husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the expenses of the child from the date of the petition till her marriage. The said order was not challenged within the prescribed period. Subsequently, the petitioner filed RPFC No.263/2024 before this Court with a delay of 313 days. However, the said revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the interlocutory application was also closed. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Family Court for modification of the order. Accordingly, he filed Crl.Misc.No.25/2025 before the Family Court. After hearing both sides, the Family Court dismissed the said application. Instead of challenging the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.25/2025, the petitioner has filed the present RPFC challenging the order passed in Crl. Misc.No.641/2018 with a delay of 556 days i.e., one year six months. In fact, the filing of RPFC No.216/2025 is not against order of the Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.25/2025 is not maintainable. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2026 is dismissed and RPFC No.216/2025 is also dismissed as not maintainable.
8. Accordingly, both the application for condonation of delay and the revision petition are dismissed
