- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6443 WP No. 148021 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 148021 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHIMIBAI W/O. SHRIMANT MARAGALE AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BAVANADADDI, KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 2. PAMMABAI W/O. DIGAMBAR LOKHANDE AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: REVNAL, TQ: JATH, DIST: SANGALI, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-416404. 3. ANJUBAI W/O SHRIMANT SHINDE AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ABHINAND COLONY, BLOCK NO.2, NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE, SANGALI, TQ AND DIST: SANGALI, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-416416. 4. RAVSAB S/O. SHRIMANT MARAGALE AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BAVANADADDI, KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248, NOW RESIDING NEAR VIJAYANAGAR WATER TANK, MAISHAL, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-416409. 5. MAATARBAA S/O. SHRIMANT MARAGALE AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BAVANADADDI, KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 6. SUVARNA W/O. RAJU KARADE AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEAR VIJAYANAGAR WATER TANK, MAISHAL, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-416409. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH R.PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.23 14:18:32 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6443 WP No. 148021 of 2020 AND: 1. MANAGU SHRIMANT MARAGALE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s, SUNITA W/O. MANAGU MARAGALE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 2. KAVITA W/O. MANAGU MARAGALE AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 3. KIRAN S/O. MANAGU MARAGALE AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. RESPONDENT 3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1 SUNITA M. MARAGALE. 4. GOVIND S/O. SHRIMANT MARAGALE AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248, NOW RESIDING AT PANDAREWADI, TQ: JATH, DIST: SANGALI, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-416412. 5. SHRIMANT S/O. AGNU MARAGALE AGE: 86 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 6. BAPU S/O. AGNU MARAGALE AGE: 92 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 7. TUKARAM S/O. AGNU MARAGALE AGE: 90 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 8. SANGAPPA S/O. AGNU MARAGALE AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6443 WP No. 148021 of 2020 R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 9. SADASHIV S/O. AGNU MARAGALE AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 10. DNYANABA S/O. AGNU MARAGALE AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KASEGAON, TQ AND DIST: SANGALI, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-415404. 11. SHIVAGOND S/O. AGNU MARAGALE AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 12. MAINUDDIN S/O. MALIKSAB DONGARGAON AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 13. ANNAPPA S/O. BHIMA KANADE AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HAMALWADI, NEAR KUPAWAD M.I.D.C., TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI-416436. 14. BALU S/O. LAXMAN MARAGALE AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 15. HAJIBA S/O. LAXMAN MARAGALE AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 16. RAGHU S/O. LAXMAN MARAGALE AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 17. KEDARBA S/O. LAXMAN MARAGALE AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 18. GUJARABAI W/O. SHIVAGONDA MARAGALE AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6443 WP No. 148021 of 2020 R/O: BAVANDADDI, KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 19. SANJAY S/O. SHIVAGONDA MARAGALE AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BAVANDADDI, KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. 20. AGNU S/O. SHIVAGONDA MARAGALE AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 21. SHRIKANT S/O. SHIVAGONDA MARAGALE AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 22. RAVASAB S/O. SHIVAGONDA MARAGALE AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESPONDENT NO.22 IS MINOR, REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.18 GUJARABAI SHIVAGONDA MARAGALE. RESPONDENT NO.20 AND 21 ARE R/O. BAVANDADDI, KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. ANAND D.BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED; R3 IS MINOR REP. BY R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.12.2020 NOTICE TO R6 TO R22 ARE DISPENSED WITH; R22 IS MINOR REP. BY R18) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER ON IA NO. 6 DATED 07.09.2020 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ATHANI IN F.D.P NO.11/2008 PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE WRIT PETITION AT ANNEXURE F IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6443 WP No. 148021 of 2020 ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by the impleading applicants who claim to be the second wife and children born out of a void marriage. This impleading application is rejected by the trial court, which is under challenge. 2. Without delving into the question of whether the impleading applicants are the second wife and children born to defendant No.1 from a marriage that is admittedly void in law, it is essential to analyze their claim in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa and Another v. Mallikarjun and Others, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 1. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the applicants' assertion regarding their status as the second wife and children of defendant No.1 is true, such a status, by itself, does not entitle them to any independent or enforceable right in the present proceedings. The Apex Court, while conferring certain protections and rights upon children born out of void or voidable marriages, has not extended such rights - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6443 WP No. 148021 of 2020 to a degree that would override or displace the rights of a living parent particularly in situations involving succession or partition during the lifetime of such a parent. 3. In the instant case, defendant No.1 is still alive. Consequently, any rights that the impleading applicants, as alleged illegitimate children, may claim under the guise of legitimacy whether by legal fiction or otherwise remain inchoate and unenforceable at this stage. As such, they do not possess any independent or vested right that would justify their impleadment as necessary parties to the final decree proceedings pending in FDP No.11/2008. The attempt to implead themselves in the said proceedings is therefore premature and legally untenable. 4. Even if it is conceded that the children in question can establish their status as illegitimate children of defendant No.1, the conferment of legitimacy by legal fiction, as envisaged in REVANASIDDAPPA (SUPRA), does not, by itself, create or crystallize a right in their favour to participate in the final decree proceedings during the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6443 WP No. 148021 of 2020 lifetime of their father. The rights of such children, though protected in a broader constitutional and equitable sense, are not absolute and must be understood within the framework of established principles of succession law, particularly when the parent from whom they derive such rights is still alive. 5. In the present case, the trial court has rightly observed that the petitioners failed to produce any substantive documentary evidence to establish petitioner No.1’s status as the second wife of defendant No.1. More importantly, even if such status were assumed or established, it would not entitle the applicants to seek impleadment in the final decree proceedings, as they have no direct, immediate, or enforceable interest in the subject matter of the partition at this juncture. The judgment in REVANASIDDAPPA (SUPRA) does not alter this position, as the conferment of legitimacy under that ruling does not equate to an automatic or contemporaneous right to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6443 WP No. 148021 of 2020 assert a share in joint family property or to intervene in partition proceedings while the father is alive. 6. Accordingly, the trial court's order rejecting the impleading application suffers from no legal infirmity. The petitioners’ claim to participate in the proceedings is untenable both in law and on facts. The writ petition, therefore, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21