K.S. HEMARAJ Vs. UMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No.1/2023 for condonation of delay of 701 days in filing the petition.

(2.) In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to that an exparte order has been passed against him and the same was not served on him and he is an illiterate. Later after issuance of NBW only he came to know about the said order and after that he has collected the certified copy of the same and gave necessary instructions to the counsel and thereafter filed this petition and for bonafide reason he could not appear before the Trial Court.

(3.) The respondents filed the statement of objections contending that an order was passed in the month of January 2019 and there is a delay of 4 years 6 months in filing this revision petition. The respondents also filed Crl.Misc.No.840/2019 before the II Additional Principal Judge Family Court under Sec. 128 of Cr.P.C. and sought for enforcement of order of maintenance in which the petitioner has been sent to jail and once again in the year 2022 also the petitioner has been sent to jail. Inspite of that, the petitioner has failed to pay the maintenance allowance to the wife and the children. It is also contended that the petitioner has taken exparte decree of divorce on 5/4/2010 against the respondent in M.C.No.2240/2009 and the same was set aside on 13/2/2015 in Misc.Case No.154/2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court in M.F.A.No.4520/2015 and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 11/1/2023. The petitioner initiated the proceedings under Sec. 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 in G & WC No.87/2011 and the said petition has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been appointed as natural guardian of the son and direction has been issued to this respondent to hand over the custody of the son on or before 3/1/2014 to the petitioner by its order dtd. 10/12/2013. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred M.F.A.No.1058/2014 and the same was allowed and set aside the order dtd. 10/12/2013 and consequently petition came to be dismissed by its order dtd. 12/1/2023. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are presently aged about 17 years and 15 years and respondent No.1 is only taking care of these two children and no sufficient reason is given to condone the delay.