- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 276 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O LATE H N PARSHWANATHA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, C/O H P DEVENDRA AND NAGENDRA PRASAD, 2ND FLOOR, SAMPIGE ROAD, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN-573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R P HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. RACHITHA RAJSHEKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. (A) SRI. H N PARSHWANATHA (SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS) SRI H P PADMALATHA W/O LATE PADMAPRABHA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.2929, SONAGIRI, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570 009. (B) H P MAHAVIR PRASAD Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 S/O LATE H N PARSHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.24, CHANDRSNATHA NILYA, NEAR HASANAMBA TEMPLE, STREET OPPOSITE GANAPATHI TEMPLE, HASSAN -573201. (C) SRI H P NAGENDRA PRASAD S/O LATE H N PARSHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NEMINATHA SADANA, NEHRU STREET, NEAR CHENNAKESHAVA TEMPLE, HASSAN-573201 (NOTE: SINCE RESPONDENT DIED ON 10-04-2023, HIS LEGAL HEIRS ARE ARRAYED AS RESPONDENTS IN THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITION) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R KALYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A); SRI. K S GANESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B); NOTICE TO R1(C)-SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 18-04-2023 PASSED IN MFA NO.616/2017 AND RECALL THE SAID ORDER AND RESTORE THE ABOVE APPEAL TO ITS ORIGINAL FILE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This review petition has been filed seeking to review the judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed in MFA No.616/2017 (FC). 2. Heard. 3. Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed MFA No.616/2017 (FC) challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2016 passed in M.C.No.36/2014 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan, wherein the petition of the respondent husband filed under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed and the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved. The said judgment was challenged in the aforesaid appeal. 4. It is submitted that this court vide order dated 18.04.2023 disposed off MFA No.616/2017 on the ground - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 that the respondent has expired in the month of April, 2023. 5. It is further submitted that even if the party to the matrimonial proceedings died, the proceedings would not abate. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of YALLAWWA (Smt) v. SHANTAVVA (Smt.) reported in (1997) 11 SCC 159 and RAVINDER KAUR v. MANJEET SINGH (Dead) through Legal Representatives reported in (2019) 8 SCC 308. 6. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 8 of Yellawwa's case (supra) has clearly observed that if either of the parties to the matrimonial dispute die, the proceedings would not abate, as it has other consequences. Hence, review of the judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed in MFA No.616/2017 (FC) is sought on the ground of error apparent on the face of it. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 7. Per contra, Sri.Kalyan.R, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of respondent no.1 submits that in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court appropriate order may be passed. 8. We have heard the arguments of both sides and the material available on record. 9. This court admittedly vide judgment dated 18.04.2023 in MFA No.616/2017 (FC) disposed off the appeal solely on the ground that the respondent-husband has expired in April, 2023. 10. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in the case of YALLAWWA (supra) is extracted herein below: "8. It is now time for us to refer to the decisions of different High Courts on which strong reliance was placed by either side. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the alternative contention that proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC would abate on the death of the husband who had obtained an ex parte decree against his wife relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Saraswathi Ammal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 v. Lakshmi wherein a learned Single Judge no doubt had taken the view which is canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been observed by the learned Judge that where on application by the husband alleging that his wife deserted him intentionally and without any justification a decree of divorce was passed ex parte and the husband died subsequently on passing of the decree, the wife could not seek to set aside ex parte decree thereafter by impleading the legal representatives of the deceased husband. The proceedings for divorce initiated by the deceased husband was purely personal to him founded on the subsistence of the marriage between him and his wife and on his death the proceedings at whatever stage they were stood abated. When the husband alleged that his wife deserted him without any justification, that complaint was purely a personal complaint of the husband against his wife with which the husband's legal representatives had nothing whatever to do. The very basis for the initiation of proceedings for divorce was purely personal to the husband and when he died, there was no question of its survival in the estate of the deceased husband either for his benefit or for the benefit of the wife. The deceased husband was not seeking the enforcement of any right, which on his death, would vest in his heir at law or the representative of his estate. It is difficult to appreciate this line of reasoning. It is true that such decree is passed in a petition moved by the husband on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 the ground of desertion by his wife. It is also true that these proceedings remain purely based on personal cause of action till they reach finality at the trial, but once a decree of divorce is passed certain legal effects regarding the status of parties and even proprietary effects flowing from such decree as noted earlier would arise as a direct consequence of such a decree. That will have a straight impact on the estate of the deceased husband or wife, as the case may be. Unfortunately, the learned Judge was not apprised of these legal pernicious effects flowing from ex parte decree of divorce against the aggrieved spouse. That had led the learned Judge to assume that there were no legal consequences of ex parte decree on the other spouse. It is also not correct to observe that legal representatives of the husband have nothing to do with these proceedings. As we have seen earlier, the proprietary right of other legal heirs of the deceased husband to get full share in the deceased husband's property would get directly affected and curtailed if such decree is set aside. On the other hand, such right would get enlarged if such a decree is sustained in appeal or is maintained under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, therefore, must be held to be erroneous. In Bhan Kaur v. Isher Singh a view similar to that of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court had been taken, which in our view also does not lay down the correct law. On the other hand, we find - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 that a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Kamalabai v. Ramdas Manga Ingale has correctly held that where an appeal was filed by the wife against the decree of divorce and the respondent died during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal cannot be treated as having abated on the death of the respondent. It was further observed that where the position is not free from doubt equitable consideration must prevail and bearing in mind the nature of the conclusion, the far-reaching effect of the findings of the Court, both on personal status and property rights, it is desirable that the party aggrieved by the decree of the trial court must have the opportunity to have the findings reversed and this opportunity must be assured irrespective of the death of the respondent. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Judge had relied upon the earlier decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Suhas Manohar Pande v. Manohar Shamrao Pande and the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vempa Sunanda v. Vempa Venkata Subbarao. It must, therefore, be held that after a decree of divorce is obtained by the petitioning husband against his wife she has right to file an appeal and such appeal does not abate on account of the death of the respondent- husband whether such death takes place prior to the filing of appeal or pending the appeal. Similarly, if an ex parte decree of divorce is obtained against the wife - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 and thereafter if the husband dies, the aggrieved wife can maintain an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, even though the husband might have died prior to the moving of that application or during the pendency of such application. In all such cases other legal heirs of the deceased husband can be brought on record as opponents or respondents in such proceedings by the aggrieved spouse who wants such decree to be set aside and when the other heirs of the deceased husband would naturally be interested in getting such decree confirmed either in appeal or under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The second alternative contention as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, stands rejected." 11. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal cannot be disposed off merely on the ground that either of the parties to the matrimonial dispute have died. 12. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21531-DB RP No. 276 of 2024 ORDER The judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed in MFA No.616/2017 (FC) is reviewed. MFA No.616/2017 is restored to the file. The interim order granted in MFA No.616/2017 revives until further orders. Accordingly, R.P.No.276/2024 is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE NP