Dismissed¶42

Sri Amaresh v. Smt. Suvarna

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2025RPFC/53/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C maintenance; Section 19(4) Family Court Act revision (RPFC); abatement of revision petition on death of petitioner-husband; refusal to implead children of extra-marital relationship as legal representatives; direction to file declaratory suit; withdrawal of Rs.8,00,000 deposit; attornment of tenancy Shop No.45 SRS street K.R.Market; Co-ordinate Bench order dated 17.02.2023; C.Misc.No.317/2016 Family Court Bengaluru; High Court of Karnataka; Lalitha Kanneganti, J.; decided 11.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as abated; respondent/wife held entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner, if any; all interlocutory applications closed. ¶42

Sri Amaresh Vs Smt. Suvarna — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition dismissed as abated; respondent/wife held entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner, if any; all interlocutory applications closed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the children born through Bhagyavathi.A. can be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. +2 more

¶26

Court's answer

This Court cannot allow the impleading application, as allowing it would declare the children born through Bhagyavathi.A. as legal representatives of the deceased, when the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was in subsistence till the day he died and the relationship with Bhagyavathi was extra-marital.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

I.A.No.1/2025 filed to implead the legal representatives is dismissed; persons claiming to be legal representatives of the deceased must file an appropriate suit and get themselves declared as such.

¶29

Key takeaways

As the petitioner/husband is no more and the respondent/wife is the only surviving legal heir (there being no children in the wedlock), the question of executing attornment of tenancy in respect of the shop in favour of the petitioner does not arise.ratio¶36
Notwithstanding the contention that the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 17.02.2023 was not complied with, the respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner, if any.ratio¶43
The revision petition filed by the petitioner/husband is dismissed as abated, and all interlocutory applications in the petition stand closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.), RPFC No. 53 of 2022, decided 11.08.2025: Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the Family Court, Bengaluru order dated 09.02.2022 in C.Mis.No.317/2016, which partly allowed the wife's petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C granting her Rs.20,000/- monthly maintenance and Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses. The petitioner/husband died on 29.11.2024 during pendency. His application I.A.No.1/2025 to implead the two children born through one Bhagyavathi.A. as his legal representatives was dismissed, the Court holding that it could not declare them legal representatives while the marriage with the respondent subsisted till his death; such claimants must file an appropriate suit for declaration. Since the respondent/wife is the only surviving legal heir, the attornment-of-tenancy condition (Shop No.45, SRS street, K.R.Market) attached to the Co-ordinate Bench's order dated 17.02.2023 directing deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- could no longer operate; the respondent was held entitled to withdraw the deposited amount, if any. The revision petition was dismissed as abated and all I.As. were closed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 53 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI AMARESH S/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEAWRS R/AT NO. 72, 13^TH CROSS 19^TH MAIN, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU -560 027

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT.SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O SRI AMARESH R/AT NO. 19, K.V. LANE COTTONPET BENGALURU -560 056

¶14

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2022 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO.317/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM:

¶20

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order passed in C.Misc.No.317/2016 dated 09.02.2022 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had directed the petitioner/husband to pay monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent/wife and litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.5,000/-, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.

¶26

It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner/husband is no more and he died on 29.11.2024. Now, I.A.No.1/2025 is filed for bringing the LRs of the petitioner. It is the case that the respondent is married to the petitioner and after sometime she left to her parents' house. Then the petitioner has come in contact with one Bhagyavathi.A. and they started living together and they have two female children. The respondent herein started residing with the mother of the petitioner. It is stated that as the petitioner died, the children born through Bhagyavathi.A. are the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, as such, they shall be brought on record as the LRs of the deceased.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

On the face of it, considering the affidavit that is filed before this Court and the submissions made before this Court, this Court cannot allow such an application where there is no dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was in subsistence till the day he died and it is the case that he is having extra marital relationship with one Bhagyavathi and there are two children. By allowing this application, this Court would be declaring them as the legal representatives of the deceased, which this Court cannot do and cannot consider them as the legal representatives of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the I.A.No.1/2025 that is filed to implead the legal representatives is dismissed. If they claim themselves to be the legal representatives, it is for them to file an appropriate suit and get them declared as the legal representatives of the deceased.

¶30

The next point that is urged is that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 17.02.2023 had passed an order that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/before this Court within two weeks from the date of order and on deposit of the amount, the respondent shall execute a deed

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

for attornment of tenancy in favour of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.45 situated at SRS street, K.R.Market within two weeks thereafter. On execution of the deed of attornment of tenancy by the respondent in favour of the petitioner, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- deposited by the husband before this Court.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as this order is not complied with, the respondent cannot withdraw the amount.

¶36

The undisputed fact of this case is that the petitioner and the respondent are illegally wedded wife and husband. There were disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent had filed C.Misc.No.317/2016 seeking maintenance and the Family Court had granted the maintenance. Now, the husband is no more. Admittedly, there are no children in the wedlock and now, the respondent/wife is the only surviving legal heir of the petitioner/husband. Now, the question of executing attornment in respect of the shop in favour of the petitioner/husband does not arise as the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

petitioner is no more. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order:

¶41

ORDER

¶42