Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.
Jayaram, S/o Late Sri M. Venkataswamy – Petitioner
Versus
M. Papaiah Reddy, S/o Sri P. Muniswamappa – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 47994 of 2019 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 20-11-2025
For the Petitioner: Sri. K.V. Satish, Adv., For Sri. B. Hemanth Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. P.D.Surana, Adv., Sri. M.D. Raghunath, Adv., Sri. Abhinay Y.T, Adv., Sri. Balachandra, Y.S, Adv.
A divorced spouse lacks entitlement to property shares post-divorce, despite maintenance orders, unless showing evidence of prior possession or specific legal rights.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(1) - Writ petition for setting aside the order relating to the allotment of shares in estate - Divorced wife not entitled to a share in deceased husband's property post-divorce despite an order for maintenance - The court held that the lack of possession or previous rights negates the claim of the divorced wife for property share (Paras 12-15).
(B) Legal principles on maintenance and ownership rights - The judgment reiterates that a divorced spouse does not gain rights to property post-divorce unless specifically entitled under law or by prior possession (Paras 13-14).
Facts of the case:
The writ petition arises from a final decree proceeding concerning the distribution of property following a partition suit. The petition challenged a partial decree allowing the divorced wife of a deceased defendant to share in his property based on prior maintenance orders. No evidence of possession was presented for her claim (Paras 1-5).
Findings of Court:
The court found the trial court erred in allotting a share to the divorced wife based on maintenance while asserting her marital relation ceased upon divorce—her rights were not sufficient to establish a claim to the estate (Para 16).
Issues: The key issue was whether a divorced wife is entitled to a share in her ex-husband's estate post-divorce despite maintenance claims (Para 17).
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the divorced wife was not entitled to a property share, reinforcing that mere maintenance does not confer ownership rights in property unless backed by occupation or pre-existing rights (Para 14).
Result: Writ petition allowed in part; the impugned order pertaining to the allotment to the divorced wife was set aside, while confirming portions designated to lawful heirs (Para 17).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed under article 227 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. partition and share claims of plaintiffs (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's order on share allotment (Para 6 , 11) |
| 4. arguments on respondent no.2's share rights (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. divorce decree and maintenance considerations (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. rights under hindu succession act (Para 12 , 14) |
| 7. court's position on maintenance claims (Para 13 , 15) |
| 8. misinterpretation of ownership rights after death (Para 16) |
| 9. final order and conclusion of the petition (Para 17) |
ORDER :
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.08.2019 passed on IA.no.1/2017 in FDP.No.15016/2004 by the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Suit in O.S.No.15197/1999 was filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru by Smt. Puttamma and others, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also for declaration that plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties, and further to declare that the alleged sale deed executed by late Gullappa and defendant no.5 pertaining to Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties, as null and void.
4. One Nagappa Reddy was defendant no.2 in O.S.No.15197/1999. The said suit was partly decreed and it was held that plaintiffs are entitled for 4/15th share in Item nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties and plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in Item no.4 of the suit schedule property.
5. Final Decree Proceedings in FDP.No.15016/2004 was initiated by plaintiff no.1 before the Trial Court. In the said proceedings, IA-1/2017 was filed by the petitioners under Section 151 CPC for modifying the share of the parties, in view of the death of respondent no.2/defendant no.2. The divorced wife of defendant no.2 - late Nagappa Reddy who was brought on record as his legal representative, filed objections to IA- 1/2017 stating that she had no knowledge about the decree of divorce passed against her. She also stated that she was awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC, and therefore, she is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties on behalf of her late husband. Therefore, the prayer made in IA-1/2017 was liable to be dismissed.
6. The Trial Court vide the order impugned allowed IA- 1/2017 in part and it was held that respondent no.2(a) i.e., divorced wife of Nagappa Reddy, will also get equal share in the share of deceased Nagappa Reddy allotted to him in the preliminary decree along with the other parties to the final decree proceedings. Assailing the said order, petitioners are before this Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of respondent no.2 in this petition, with late Nagappa Reddy was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted in M.C.No.7/1971 on 27.07.1972. The same has attained finality. Thereafter, respondent no.2 herein has initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.pC before the jurisdictional Family Court and in a revision petition filed before this Court in CRP.No.1765/1996 c/w CRP.No.260/1996, the maintenance awarded to respondent no.2 herein was modified to Rs.300/- per month. Merely for the reason that the divorced wife has been granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- per month, the Trial Court was not justified in allotting a share in the share of deceased defendant no.2 viz., Nagappa Reddy. He submits that at best a charge could have been created over the share which was allotted to Nagappa Reddy, and a share in the said property could not have been allotted to respondent no.2 who is the divorced wife of Nagappa Reddy. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SADHU SINGH VS. GURDWARA SAHIB NARIKE AND OTHERS - (2006) 8 SCC 75 .
8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that und
