H V LINGAPPA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
®
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 28171 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
H.V.LINGAPPA
S/O LATE K.N.VEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/O HIREBELAGULI VILLAGE,
HALEKOTE HOBLI,
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK -573 211
HASSAN DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN- 573 201
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION,
HASSAN -573 201
3. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O H.V.LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/O HIREBELAGULI VILLAGE,
HALEKOTE HOBLI,
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK -573 211
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
HASSAN DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI.H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 PASSED BY THE R1 IN
PROCEEDINGS NO. 12, 14/2022-23 PRODUCED AS PER
ANNEXURE-Q TO THE WP CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED
28.7.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. 14/2021-
22 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-N TO THE WP TO THE
EXTENT DIRECTING TO ISSUE JOINT KATHA IN THE JOINT
NAMES OF THE PETITIONER AND R3 HEREIN IN RESPECT OF
THE LAND MEASURING 2 ACRES 39 GUNTAS COMPRISED IN
SY.NO.30/3 OF HIREBELAGULI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI,
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK AND HASSAN DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
“WHEREFORE, the petitioner most
respectfully prays that, the Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to:-
a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and
quash the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by
st
the 1 respondent in proceedings
. ಎಂ . ಎ . . ರ
No . . 12, 14/2022-23 produced
as per Annexure-Q to the writ
petition confirming the order dated
28.07.2022 passed by the second respondent
in proceedings No. . . ರ 14/2021-22
produced as per Annexure-N to the writ
petition to the extent directing to issue joint
Katha in the joint names of the petitioner and
third respondent herein in respect of the land
measuring 2 acres 39 guntas comprised in
Sy.No.30/3 of Hirebelaguli village, Halekote
Hobli, Holenarsipura Taluk and Hassan
District;
b) Pass such other suitable orders as this
Hon'ble court deems it appropriate in the
attendant circumstances and facts of the
case;
c) Award the cost of this proceeding.”
rd
2. The petitioner and the 3 respondents are husband
and wife. They lived as husband and wife for 35 years and in
the wedlock they were blessed with two daughters and a son.
All of them are married and living their respective lives.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a
conductor in KSRTC and was drawing a meager salary and with
that he was taking care of the family. Upon attaining the age of
superannuation, the petitioner retired from the services of
KSRTC as a conductor and received a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-
towards retirement benefits. It is his case that the son and
respondent/wife snatched the said amount and the petitioner
became penniless. He was under the fond hope that he would
be taken care of by them, but the son instigated the mother to
quarrel with the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner was
thrown out of his house. He has taken a rented house and he is
struggling hard to make both ends meet. The petitioner
inherited the landed properties from his ancestors. When he
was not permitted to cultivate the land to eke out his livelihood,
he instituted OS.No.350/2013 on the file of Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Holenarsipura against his two daughters,
respondent/wife and son. Even after service of notice, as they
remained absent they were placed ex-parte and a judgment
was passed.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. The son has contested the suit, after a full-fledged
trial, a judgment and decree dated 09.10.2015 was passed
declaring that the petitioner herein, his wife, two daughters and
th
the son are entitled for 1/5 share each. The same was
questioned by the son by filing R.A.No.09/2016, which came to
be allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed by the
th rd
Trial Court granting 1/5 share to the 3 respondent/wife was
rd
set aside holding that the 3 respondent is not entitled to a
share in the suit schedule properties during the lifetime of the
husband. Only the father, his son and two daughters are
th
entitled for 1/4 shares each. Thereafter, the petitioner sought
division of the properties by filing F.D.P.No.16/2015. In that,
the Court Commissioner was appointed and the Court, after
hearing the parties, was pleased to accept the partition
proposal submitted by the Court Commissioner. It is stated
that, in the meantime, the third respondent filed
O.S.No.304/2018 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC to declare that she and the petitioner herein are joint
owners of the land measuring 2 acres 39 guntas comprised in
th
Sy.No.30/3, and the land measuring 21 1/4 guntas of land
comprised in Sy.No.48/2A, and the land measuring 11.5 guntas
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
in Sy.No.134/1C2 of Hirebelagulu Village, Halekote Hobli,
Holenarsipura Taluk. In the said suit, an application was filed
under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure
requesting to rejection of the plaint, and the learned Trial
Judge, by Order dated 07.11.2020, was pleased to reject the
plaint holding that a suit filed by the third respondent is not
rd
maintainable. The 3 respondent has challenged the same by
way of a regular appeal before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Holenarsipura, by filing R.A.No.23/2022 and by judgment dated
04.03.2023, the appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-
and thereby confirming the order passed by the Trial Court on
I.A.No.3.
5. The respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc.No.176/2018 against petitioner herein
claiming monthly maintenance. Thereafter, on 20.12.2022 the
respondent/wife filed a memo and requested to dismiss
Crl.Misc.No.176/2018 until such time the petition filed before
the Assistant Commissioner under the Provisions of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 is decided on merits.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
6. The petitioner, in order to discharge the loan, sold the
land by virtue of two sale deeds. Based on the application filed
nd
by the wife, the 2 respondent passed an order granting
maintenance and directed to enter the names of both the
parties in the Katha. Against that, an appeal was preferred and
nd
the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the 2
respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this
Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband
submits that as the dispute is between the wife and husband
who are senior citizens, the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has no application. It is
submitted that, when a competent Civil Court has held that the
rd
3 respondent is not entitled to any share in the property, and
the same has attained finality, and even the final decree
proceedings are concluded, the question of entering the name
rd
of the 3 respondent in the katha would not arise. To decide
st nd
these kinds of disputes, the 1 and 2 respondents have no
jurisdiction. It is submitted that, when a subsequent suit was
filed, the plaint came to be rejected and in the appeal, the
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
costs were imposed while confirming the order of rejection of
st nd
the plaint. It is submitted that both the 1 and 2 respondents
have exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on them under the
st nd
Act. It is submitted that the order passed by the 1 and 2
respondents needs to be set aside.
8. Learned AGA Sri Mahantesh Shettar appearing on
st nd
behalf of 1 and 2 respondent submits that considering the
rd
fact that the 3 respondent is a senior citizen and because of
the acts on the part of the petitioner she has been put to a lot
st
of inconvenience and to meet the ends of justice, the 1 and
nd
2 respondents have passed the order impugned and there is
no infirmity in the said order which requires interference at the
hands of this Court.
rd
9. Though notice is served on the 3 respondent and the
rd
vakalath is filed on behalf of the 3 respondent, there is no
representation. Hence, this court is proceeding to pass orders
on the merits of the matter.
10. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, perused the
material on record. In the light of the contentions raised before
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
this court, the only issue that falls for consideration before this
court is:
“Whether a complaint filed by the wife against her
husband who is a senior citizen, is maintainable
under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007”.
11. The Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and
Senior Citizens Act 2007, is enacted to protect elderly people
by ensuring that they are properly taken care of by their
children and relatives. The purport of the act is to ensure
protection of elderly persons from neglect and abuse. The Act is
a beneficial legislation intended to safeguard the interest of
senior citizens. Section 4 of the Act deals with maintenance of
parents and senior citizens and it is appropriate to look at
Section 2(g) and Section 4 of the Act which reads thus:
“ 2. Definitions:-
g. "relative" means any legal heir of the childless
senior citizen who is not a minor and is in
possession of or would inherit his property after
his death
4. Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens
1. A senior citizen including parent who is unable
to maintain himself from his own earning or
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
property owned by him, shall be entitled to make
an application under section 5 in case of –
i. parent or grand-parent, against one or more of
his children not being a minor
ii. a childless senior citizen, against such of his
relative referred to in clause (g) of section 2
2. The obligation of the children or relative, as the
case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends
to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen
may lead a normal life.
3. The obligation of the children to maintain his or
her parent extends to the needs of such parent
either father or mother or both, as the case may
be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.
4. Any person being a relative of a senior citizen
and having sufficient means shall maintain such
senior citizen provided he is in possession of the
property of such senior citizen or he would inherit
the property of such senior citizen:
Provided that where more than one relatives are
entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen,
the maintenance shall be payable by such relative
in the proportion in which they would inherit his
property.”
12. A base perusal of the object of the Act and also the
definitions, particularly section 4 of the Act, makes it crystal
clear that the dispute raised in this case is between the
rd
petitioner and the 3 respondent/ wife, doesn't fall under the
scheme of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007. The wife cannot seek the relief under the
Act by filing a complaint against the husband who is a senior
citizen. The Act is beneficial and protective insofar as senior
citizens are concerned, but not adversarial against senior
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
citizens. The wife does not fall within the class of person
entitled to initiate proceedings against the husband. If the wife
has any grievance against the husband, there are other
remedies available to her. That apart, when the disputes
between the parties have attained finality in respect of a
particular property, the application filed by the wife before the
respondents seeking the relief that her name should be
mutated is beyond the powers conferred on respondent Nos.1
and 2 under the provisions of the Act. It is very unfortunate
st nd
that both the 1 and 2 respondents exceeded their
jurisdiction and entertained this application.
13. The jurisdiction conferred on the respondents Nos. 1
and 2 under the Act is summary in nature, confined to
maintenance, protection and eviction in certain circumstances.
The Act is not intended to decide complex civil or matrimonial
disputes. An authority exercising powers under a particular
statute must act within the four corners of the statute and
cannot assume jurisdiction which is not vested in it. When a
statutory Tribunal travels beyond the purpose and scope of the
enactment, the orders are vitiated by jurisdictional error and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
are liable to be set aside. The order impugned is liable to be set
aside, firstly on the ground that the respondents have no
jurisdiction. Secondly, the order of a competent Civil Court,
which had attained finality, was overlooked by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2. Thirdly, the Act allows senior citizens to reclaim
property transferred to children/relatives when they fail to take
care of them, when there is specific clause in the deed of
transfer. The disputes between the husband and wife cannot be
decided under the Act.
14. The Act is protection-focused, but like any other legal
tool, it is exploited and used strategically by parties, where
there is a family conflict mixed with property and financial
expectations. The respondent/authorities under the Act shall be
mindful of this while exercising the jurisdiction under the Act
and shall ensure that there is no abuse of process.
15. In the light of the above discussion, this Court deems
it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
st
i. The order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the 1
ಎಂ.ಎ. . ರ
respondent in proceedings No. . . 12,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17880
WP No. 28171 of 2023
HC-KAR
14/2022-23 by confirming the order dated
nd
28.07.2022 passed by 2 respondent in proceedings
ರ.
No. . . 14/2021-22 is set aside.
ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is Allowed.
iii. All pending I.As if any, in the writ petition shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
TS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54