- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14467 RSA No. 100799 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100799 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: ROOPA W/O. SHRIDHAR KULKARNI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. R.B. GUNJAL BUILDING, ABAGARPET, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GEETA W/O. VENKATESH KULKARNI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE KARANTAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., W AND W SUB DIVISION, NARAGUND, DIST. GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. DAYANAND SANGRESH, HCGP FOR R2; SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE COURTS BELOW (b). ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.09.20245 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, GADAG IN RA NO.73/2023 REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2022, PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM GADAG IN O.S.NO.243/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.243/2022 DATED 21.09.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM GADAG MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED AND ETC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.30 11:09:54 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14467 RSA No. 100799 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned H.C.G.P. appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The appeal is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.243/2022 assailing the judgment in R.A.No.73/2023 dated 19.09.2024 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag. 3. The plaintiff who is mother of deceased Shridhar Kulkarni filed the suit in O.S.No.243/2022 seeking partition and to allot half share in the service benefits pertaining to the death of the Shridhar Kulkarni. Defendant No.1 is the wife of the deceased Shridhar Kulkarni. The deceased was working as a SDA with respondent No.3. It is contented that the death benefits to the tune of ₹12,00,000/- are with defendant No.3 and the plaintiff’s mother is also entitled for a share in the death benefits. Initially the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14467 RSA No. 100799 of 2024 that the plaintiff is not a member of the family as defined under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules and she cannot be a dependent. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court, by relying on various judgments of the High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court, it held that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share in death benefits like DCRG, PF, DA, HRA, PT, EGIS, LIC, KGID etc., of the deceased Shridhar Kulkarni. Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 is before this Court in second appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the evidence shows that defendant No.1 had spent for the treatment of the deceased Shridhar Kulkarni during his lifetime to the tune of more than ₹2,00,000/- and had availed loans for that purpose. In this regard, he draws the attention of this Court to Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 which are the resolutions passed by different Mahila Swa-Sahaya Sanghas for having availed the loan by defendant No.1. It is contended that the appellant is entitled for the said medical expenses which she had spent for the treatment of her deceased husband. It is contended that the First Appellate Court erred in awarding 1/2 share in the death - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14467 RSA No. 100799 of 2024 benefits of the deceased and therefore, the First Appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the share has been allotted only in the death benefits, but the pensionary benefits are given to the appellant. It is contented by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that he has not made any claim in respect of the pensionary benefit, which is governed by the KCSR’s. 6. It is pertinent to note that the Ex.D1 to D3, which are the resolutions, would only show that the appellant had raised loan from a Mahila-Swa-Sahaya Sanghas. It is pertinent to note that even though a contention was raised by the respondent No.1/plaintiff that the deceased was not living in the company of defendant No.1, there is no such conclusive evidence in respect of the same. The First Appellate Court has not dealt about the said aspect and it only dealt with the matter as to who is entitled for the death benefits and the pensionary benefits. 7. When the First Appellate Court has declined to grant any relief in respect of Ex.D4, which contains prescriptions and medical bills, the veracity of such medical bills having not been proved as required under law, it has declined to accept the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14467 RSA No. 100799 of 2024 same. The question whether defendant No.1 had spent for the treatment of the deceased during his lifetime and whether she had raised loans for that purpose being a question of fact which was before the First Appellate Court. It having declined such claim, it is not open for the appellant to agitate the matter before this Court in second appeal. Trial Court has dealt with Ex.D1 to D4. It is pertinent to note that the contention that Ex.D1 to D4 have to be considered as has not been urged before the First Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, the said question of fact having attained finality cannot be entered into in the second appeal. In that view of the matter, no ground is made out for admitting the appeal and as such the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29