Karnataka High Court
Sri U Ramachandra Bhat vs Sri Krishna Bhat on 3 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:181
WP No. 49307 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 49307 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. U. RAMACHANDRA BHAT
S/O. LATE. NARAYANA MADHYASTA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT
NOT CLAIMED, R/O. KOMBETTU,
OPP. RAMA BHAT COMPOUND,
PUTTUR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
2. SMT. SHANTHA BHAT
W/O. LATE. U. RAMAKRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT
NOT CLAIMED, R/O. HITTALAMANE,
UPPUNDA VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 232.
Digitally
signed by 3. SMT. SAVITHRI UPADHYA
PAVITHRA N W/O. LATE. SHIVARAMA UPADHYA,
Location: AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
high court of
karnataka SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT
NOT CLAIMED, R/AT. KOLKERE,
BASRUR VILLAGE & POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 211.
4. SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI,
W/O. VISHNU KRISHNA DIXIT,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT
NOT CLAIMED, DEVIKANA,
KAIKINI POST, BASTI BHATKAL TALUK,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 581 421.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:181
WP No. 49307 of 2016
5. SRI. T. RAVISHANKAR MADYASTHA
S/O. LATE. NARAYANA MADHYASTHA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT
NOT CLAIMED, TALLUR
VILLAGE & POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 230.
6. SMT. NAGARATHNA, W/O. H. SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
KALLIGUDDE P.O. BELA VIA
KUMBLE KASARGOD DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE - 671 321
PETITIONER NO.2 TO 6 ARE
REP. BY G.P.A. HOLDER
SRI. U. RAMACHANDRA BHAT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: RAJESH B.L., ADVOCATE
V/O DT.7/6/23, WP AGAINST P2 IS DISMISSED)
AND:
SRI. KRISHNA BHAT
S/O. LATE. VENKATARAMA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT. SHIVA KRUPA,
UPPINANGADI TOWN & POST,
PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 241.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: KRISHNAMOORTHY D., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.2.8.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN
R.A.NO.101/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
UDUPI [SITTING AT KUNDAPUR], KUNDAPUR VIDE ANNEX-A AND
ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 AND
SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN TO BE IMPLEAD THEM AS SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONDENTS IN ABOVE APPEAL R.A.NO.101/2013 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, UDUPI [SITTING AT
KUNDAPUR], KUNDAPUR.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:181
WP No. 49307 of 2016
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The applicants in IA No.IV in RA. 101/2013 on the file of
learned Additional District Judge Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura)
are impugning the order dated 02.08.2016 dismissing the
application under order 1 Rule 10 R/w Section 151 of CPC.
2. Heard Sri. Rajesh B.L., learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri. Krishnamoorthy.D., learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were the applicants. They being the legal
representatives of deceased plaintiff in OS.No.15/2009 before
the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kundapura (hereinafter
referred to as the Trial Court) seeking maintenance from
respondent who is the divorced husband. The suit
OS.No.15/2019 was came to be decreed ordering maintenance
of Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the defendant/husband to the
plaintiff/wife from 12.03.2006 till her life time. The said
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is impugned in
NC: 2024:KHC:181
RA.No.101/2013. During pendencey of the appeal, the
plaintiff/wife died. The petitioners herein being applicants filed
IA No.IV under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead
themselves in the appeal as respondents. The said application
was came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court, which is
impugned here.
4. On perusal of material on record, it is clear that the
Trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to be
paid by the husband to the wife at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per
month from the date 12.03.2006 till her death. The appeal
RA.No.101/2013 was pending for consideration as the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is impugned by
the defendant/husband. Now the question arises as to whether
the petitioners being the brother and sister of deceased plaintiff
are entitled to be impleaded and come on record as
respondents in the appeal.
5. Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 refers to
the property of female Hindu as it is her absolute property. The
explanation appended to the Section describes "property" of a
NC: 2024:KHC:181
female Hindu as her absolute property. The explanation
appended to Section. 14 reads a under -
"Explanation: In this sub-section, "property" includes
both movable and immovable property acquired by a
female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition,
or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or
by gift from any person, whether a relative or not,
before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or
exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any
other manner whatsoever, and also any such property
held by her as stridhana immediately before the
commencement of this Act".
6. Therefore, the amount which is due or accrued in
favour of the plaintiff as arrears of maintenance, by virtue of
impugned judgment and decree passed in OS.No.15/2009 is to
be considered as property of the plaintiff upon her death.
7. The maintenance which was accrued and payable to
her devolves on her heirs as per Section 15 of the Hindu
Succession Act which deals with general rule of succession in
the case of female Hindus. Since, the defendant/respondent
being the divorced husband, he is not entitled to succeed her.
Admittedly, the couple were not having any issues. It is also
admitted that the deceased plaintiff was not having her parents
NC: 2024:KHC:181
alive. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that they
being the heirs of father of plaintiff are entitled to claim the
arrears of maintenance that is accrued till her death, is to be
accepted as provided under Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu
Succession Act.
8. The finding of the First Appellate Court that claim of
maintenance is a personal right provided by the statute, for
which, the applicants/petitioners herein are not entitled cannot
be accepted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 02.08.2016 passed in
RA.No.101/2013 on the file of learned
Additional District Judge, Udupi (Sitting at
Kundapura) dismissing IA No.4 is set aside.
iii. Consequently, IA No.4 filed under order 1 Rule
10 of CPC filed by the petitioner herein is
allowed. They are permitted to be brought on
record as respondents in the pending appeal.
iv. Since the appeal is of the year 2013, both the
parties are directed to co-operate with the First
Appellate Court in disposal of the same
NC: 2024:KHC:181
expeditiously at least within six months from
the date of receipt of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BH
