- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31688 RP No. 557 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.557 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. D.H.BASAVARAJU S/O D.M.HOLEYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT C/O SUSHEELA, KARIGOWDARA COLONY, 2ND CROSS, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN - 573 126 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISHCHANDRA.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KALPANA.H W/O D.H.BASAVARAJU D/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. KUMARI. SHREYA D/O D.H.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, MINOR REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 (SMT. KALPANA.H) BOTH RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT DOOR NO.1722/38, 2ND CROSS, SIDDAVERAPPA EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE PIN – 577 001 3. SRI. D.N. HOLEYAPPA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31688 RP No. 557 of 2024 R/AT DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, NAGAVEDI POST, KANNAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT PIN CODE - 573 103. 4. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O D M HOLEYAPPA, C/O P. SUSHEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARIGOWDARA COLONY. 2ND CROSS, B M ROAD, HASSAN PIN – 573 201. 5. SRI D H MOHAN KUMAR S/O D M HOLEYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, NAGAVEDI POST, KANNAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK PIN – 573 103. 6. SMT D H BHAGYAMMA D/O D M HOLEYAPPA W/O KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT TAMMADIHALLI VILLAGE, MASKAL POST, TUMAKUR DISTRICT PIN – 572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREENIDHI. P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER – R1; R3 TO R6 ARE SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE MAY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN RFA NO. 1003/2022 AND PASS AN APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31688 RP No. 557 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER The review petition is filed by the defendant No.5 praying to review the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by this Court in RFA No.1003/2022 and also for clarification of the decree passed by the trial court. 2. The trial court has delivered the judgment and decree to the effect that plaintiff No.2 is entitled to half share in the share of defendant No.5 in the suit schedule properties and the partitions effected on various dates as per the judgment and decree are not binding on the plaintiff No.2. Further it is ordered that defendant No.5 shall pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the plaintiffs towards their maintenance until such time a charge is created over the suit schedule properties for the maintenance of the plaintiffs. 3. This Court while considering the appeal based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31688 RP No. 557 of 2024 respondents has observed that Crl.Misc.No.18/2019 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Crl.Misc.No.11/2019 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. were disposed of. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that at the time of passing the order in this RFA, the above stated Crl.Misc.No.18/2019 was pending. Later on, the learned Magistrate has allowed the Crl.Misc.No.18/2019 partly and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, submitted now by virtue of the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.18/2019 the plaintiffs will get maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month, which is contrary to the decree passed in the suit, which is confirmed by this Court. Therefore, prays for reviewing the order passed by this Court and also for clarifications so far as observations made by the trial court. 4. The trial court has not clarified while granting maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the plaintiffs what is the apportionment and if a charge is created, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31688 RP No. 557 of 2024 whether the order of maintenance to be discharged against the both the plaintiffs or only against the plaintiff No.2/daughter. In this regard, there is no clarification in the judgment and decree. Therefore, it is necessary to make clarification in this regard which is as follows. 5. When the trial court has granted the order of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the plaintiffs, presumably in the absence of any other observation the apportionment is equal to the plaintiff No.1/mother and plaintiff No.2/daughter i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month each. When the trial court has decreed that defendant No.5 shall pay maintenance amount to the plaintiffs until subsistence, a charge is created over the suit schedule property for the maintenance of plaintiffs, which means if charge is created over the suit schedule property then the plaintiff No.2 alone will not be entitled to the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, for the reasons that the plaintiff No.2/daughter is awarded half share in the share of defendant No.5 in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31688 RP No. 557 of 2024 by virtue of this decree the plaintiff No.2 will get half share in the share of her father’s properties. 6. Whereas the decree is to the effect that only plaintiff No.1 is awarded maintenance amount without any share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, plaintiff No.1/wife is entitled for maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- as decreed in the suit and further Rs.5,000/- as ordered in Crl.Misc.No.18/2019. Thus, it is clarified that plaintiff No.1 being the wife of defendant No.5 is awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month and plaintiff No.2 being the daughter is entitled to half share in defendant No.5 in the suit schedule properties. 7. Accordingly, the above clarification is made in this review petition and the review petition is partly allowed. 8. Draw the decree in terms of the order passed in this review petition. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67