- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 53 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI AMARESH S/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEAWRS R/AT NO. 72, 13TH CROSS 19TH MAIN, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU -560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O SRI AMARESH R/AT NO. 19, K.V. LANE COTTONPET BENGALURU -560 056 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2022 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO.317/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in C.Misc.No.317/2016 dated 09.02.2022 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had directed the petitioner/husband to pay monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent/wife and litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.5,000/-, the petitioner/husband is before this Court. 2. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner/husband is no more and he died on 29.11.2024. Now, I.A.No.1/2025 is filed for bringing the LRs of the petitioner. It is the case that the respondent is married to the petitioner and after sometime she left to her parents' house. Then the petitioner has come in contact with one Bhagyavathi.A. and they started living together and they have two female children. The respondent herein started residing with the mother of the petitioner. It is stated that as the petitioner died, the children born through Bhagyavathi.A. are the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, as such, they shall be brought on record as the LRs of the deceased. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022 3. On the face of it, considering the affidavit that is filed before this Court and the submissions made before this Court, this Court cannot allow such an application where there is no dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was in subsistence till the day he died and it is the case that he is having extra marital relationship with one Bhagyavathi and there are two children. By allowing this application, this Court would be declaring them as the legal representatives of the deceased, which this Court cannot do and cannot consider them as the legal representatives of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the I.A.No.1/2025 that is filed to implead the legal representatives is dismissed. If they claim themselves to be the legal representatives, it is for them to file an appropriate suit and get them declared as the legal representatives of the deceased. 4. The next point that is urged is that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 17.02.2023 had passed an order that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- before this Court within two weeks from the date of order and on deposit of the amount, the respondent shall execute a deed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022 for attornment of tenancy in favour of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.45 situated at SRS street, K.R.Market within two weeks thereafter. On execution of the deed of attornment of tenancy by the respondent in favour of the petitioner, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- deposited by the husband before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as this order is not complied with, the respondent cannot withdraw the amount. 6. The undisputed fact of this case is that the petitioner and the respondent are illegally wedded wife and husband. There were disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent had filed C.Misc.No.317/2016 seeking maintenance and the Family Court had granted the maintenance. Now, the husband is no more. Admittedly, there are no children in the wedlock and now, the respondent/wife is the only surviving legal heir of the petitioner/husband. Now, the question of executing attornment in respect of the shop in favour of the petitioner/husband does not arise as the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30961 RPFC No. 53 of 2022 petitioner is no more. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the petitioner/husband is dismissed as abated. ii. The respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount that is deposited by the petitioner, if any. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9