K B DHANANJAYA Vs. MT Y S PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner from the legal services authority and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) LA. 1/208 is under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1807 days in filing the petition. In support of the application the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that he had preferred Criminal Appeal No.49/2007 before the Sessions Judge and FTC-I, Hassan, challenging the judgment and sentence dtd. 4/4/2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Belur, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years in C.C. No. 1011/2000 for the offence punishable under Sec. 494 IPC, but the appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Sessions Court and confirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred the revision petition. Further it is stated that the petitioner had compromised with respondent No. 1 - complainant in Execution Petition No.58/2006 before the Principal Civil Judge, Arasikere. Thus, he was under the impression that the respondent might have withdrawn the case. As such he did not make any attempts to know about further developments. When the police started visiting his village he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal. Thereafter he contacted his counsel. Since he was in financial difficulty he was unable to file the revision petition immediately. The delay caused in filing the revision petition is not deliberate of intentional one.

(3.) The first respondent has filed objection denying the averments made in the affidavit. Further it is stated that the grounds stated in the affidavit are false and concocted. Even after compromise the revision petitioner being the husband has not fulfilled his obligation and has not complied with the terms of the compromise. There is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1807 days. Revision petitioner has got sufficient sources of income to make the payment and he has not handed over any of the properties mentioned in the compromise petition. There are no valid grounds to condone the delay.