ANANDRAO N vs GUNDAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11156-DB
MFA No. 204361 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030093952023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 204361 OF 2023 (MC)
BETWEEN:
ANANDRAO N S/O BASAVANTHRAJ,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O. GURMITKAL, RAILWAY STATION,
NEAR CHITTAPUR -585325.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. JAYASHREE BHIMARAYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. GUNDAMMA W/O ANANDRAO N
(D/O SANNAMALLYYA KATTERU),
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ALLURU, TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585325.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJAMAHAMAD NABISAB BADIGER, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF HINDU MARRIAGE
ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
27.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT CHITTAPUR IN MC NO.07/2016 AND APPEAL BE ALLOWED
BY PASSING A DECREE FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DATED
11.12.2009.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed by
B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11156-DB
MFA No. 204361 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030093952023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
1. This appeal is filed by the husband challenging the
judgment and decree dated 27.11.2020 passed in
M.C.No.7/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Chittapur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family
Court’) in dismissing the petition filed by the
appellant herein under Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage with
the respondent.
2. The Family Court dismissed the petition on
27.11.2020, and the present appeal is filed before
this Court on 20.02.2024. The appellant has filed an
application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking
condonation of a delay of 1012 days in filing the
appeal. In support of the application, the appellant
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11156-DB
MFA No. 204361 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030093952023
has filed an affidavit and the affidavit filed by the
appellant reads as under:
“2. That, the deponent preferring the
appeal against the judgment and decree
dated. 27.11.2020 passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Chittapur in
M.C.No.07/2016. The deponent is advised to
state that the there are good grounds in
appeal and will be ultimately allowed by the
Hon'ble Court. The contents of the appeal
memo which are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief may be read as
part of this affidavit to avoid the repetition of
the facts.
3. That, the deponent state that the
appeal filed by him is time bared and ought to
have been filed in time. The Deponent state
on oath that, after disposal of the matrimonial
case, due to frustration and depression was
not in a position to prefer the appeal. The
parents of the deponent attained old age and
they are totally dependent on him. He has to
look after their good health and have to
frequently attend the medical care. Even after
immediate disposal of the case, due to covid-
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11156-DB
MFA No. 204361 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030093952023
19 pandemic it was not possible for the
deponent to move freely and required to take
extra medical attendance to their old aged
parents. Thereafter, the despondent waited
for the one time settlement of the matter, but
settlement was not arrived by the parties,
therefore, the deponent left with no other
option except to file the appeal before, this
Hon'ble court.
4. Therefore, I am filing the application
for condonation of delay. The delay has been
caused because of the above said reasons and
is not an intentional one. No loss or prejudice
will be caused to the other side by allowing
my application as prayed, if not I will be put
to great injustice and hardship and the very
purpose of filing this appeal will be defeated.
Hence, I request the Hon'ble Court kindly
allow my application as prayed in the interest
of justice.”
3. The affidavit filed accompanying the application
seeking condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the
Limitation Act shows no sufficient cause, nor does it
indicate or assign any reason for condonation of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11156-DB
MFA No. 204361 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030093952023
delay before this Court. The reasons assigned in
paragraphs 2 to 4 are as bald as they could be. In
other words, the appellant has not shown sufficient
cause or explained why this Court could not be
approached by filing the appeal within the limitation
period, or what prevented the appellant from
approaching this Court within the limitation period.
Even the delay of 1012 days is not properly
explained by the appellant herein. The inordinate
delay, unexplained by the appellant by sufficient
cause, cannot be considered, and the delay cannot
be condoned.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
1
v. T.T. Murali Babu has laid down the proposition
that petitions or appeals filed with inordinate delay
are not to be condoned conveniently and readily by
1
(2014) 4 SCC 108
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11156-DB
MFA No. 204361 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030093952023
the Courts. The observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court at paragraphs-16 and 17 are
reproduced hereunder:
“ 16. Thus, the doctrine of delay
and laches should not be lightly
brushed aside. A writ court is
required to weigh the explanation
offered and the acceptability of
the same. The court should bear in
mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable
jurisdiction. As a constitutional
court it has a duty to protect the
rights of the citizens but
simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that
when an aggrieved person,
without adequate reason,
approaches the court at his own
leisure or pleasure, the court
would be under legal obligation to
scrutinise whether the lis at a
belated stage should be
entertained or not. Be it noted,
delay comes in the way of equity.
In certain circumstances delay
and laches may not be fatal but in
most circumstances inordinate
delay would only invite disaster
for the litigant who knocks at the
doors of the court. Delay reflects
inactivity and inaction on the part
of a litigant — a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11156-DB
MFA No. 204361 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030093952023
namely, “procrastination is the
greatest thief of time” and second,
law does not permit one to sleep
and rise like a phoenix. Delay does
bring in hazard and causes injury
to the lis.
17. In the case at hand, though
there has been four years' delay in
approaching the court, yet the
writ court chose not to address
the same. It is the duty of the
court to scrutinise whether such
enormous delay is to be ignored
without any justification. That
apart, in the present case, such
belated approach gains more
significance as the respondent
employee being absolutely
careless to his duty and nurturing
a lackadaisical attitude to the
responsibility had remained
unauthorisedly absent on the
pretext of some kind of ill health.
We repeat at the cost of repetition
that remaining innocuously
oblivious to such delay does not
foster the cause of justice. On the
contrary, it brings in injustice, for
it is likely to affect others. Such
delay may have impact on others'
ripened rights and may
unnecessarily drag others into
litigation which in an acceptable
realm of probability, may have
been treated to have attained
finality. A court is not expected to
give indulgence to such indolent
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11156-DB
MFA No. 204361 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030093952023
persons — who compete with
“Kumbhakarna” or for that matter
“Rip Van Winkle”. In our
considered opinion, such delay
does not deserve any indulgence
and on the said ground alone the
writ court should have thrown the
petition overboard at the very
threshold.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. If the application filed by the appellant is considered
along with the reasons or cause shown for
condonation of delay, and coupled with the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
referred to supra , the application seeking
condonation of delay is bereft of any sufficient cause.
The Appellant cannot take his own leisure time to
approach the Court as and when he wants. Since the
appellant has not shown sufficient cause for the
inordinate delay in approaching this Court, the
application does not merit and is liable to be
rejected. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11156-DB
MFA No. 204361 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030093952023
ORDER
The application in I.A.No.1/2023 is hereby
rejected .
Consequently, the appeal is also
dismissed .
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
NB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10
Ct:pk