ASHOK S/O. SHRIMANT KORIGERI vs MAINTENANCE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025
R

HC-KAR



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 108602 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
C/W. WRIT PETITION NO. 104366 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
IN WP NO. 108602/2025:
BETWEEN:
SMT. KALLAVVA W/O SRIMANTH KORAGERI,
AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. ARALIKATTI GALLI, TERADAL,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANNAHATTI-587311,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT,
D.C. COMPOUND, BAGALKOT,
TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587111.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMAKANDI,
A.C. OFFICE, JAMAKANDI-587301, DIST. BAGALKOT.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. THE THASILDAR TERADAL, REVENUE OFFICER,
TERDAL, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587315.
4. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, TERDAL,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANNAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311.
5. SRI. ASHOK SRIMANTH KORAGERI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARALIKATTI GALLI, TERADAL, TQ. RABAKAVI-
BANNAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RELEVANT RECORDS; ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 TO
TAKE ACTION AS PER DIRECTIONS AT ANNEXURE-C DATED
31.05.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING
NO.KRA.M.S.C.HE.NA/C, R/16/2023.24 AND CONSEQUENTLY & ETC.,

IN WP NO. 104366/2025:
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O. SHRIMANT KORIGERI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TERDAL, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587315.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. YADAWAD GIRISH ARUN, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. MAINTENANCE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
BAGALKOT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.

2. MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL/
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.

3. SMT. KALLAWWA W/O. SHRIMANT KORIGERI,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TERDAL, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587315.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

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 TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
14.12.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN
/CR/16/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, AND THE
PÀæ.JA.J¸ï.¹/».£Á
ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå. SENIOR CITIZEN/CR-91/2023-24 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
1. The writ petition in W.P. No.108602 of 2025
is instituted by the petitioner, an octogenarian mother
and a senior citizen aged about 83 years, seeking
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent officials to implement the order dated
14.12.2023 passed by the second respondent–Assistant
Commissioner. Under the said order, the Assistant
Commissioner, purportedly exercising powers under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 (for short “the Senior Citizens Act”), has
proceeded to earmark and allot an extent of four acres
of agricultural land in favour of the petitioner out of the
joint family properties. Treating the said order as
conferring cultivation rights in her favour, the petitioner
seeks consequential directions to the authorities for
enforcement and implementation of the said order.

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


2. The connected writ petition in W.P.

No.104366 of 2025 is filed by respondent No.5 in the
lead petition, who is none other than the son of the
petitioner-senior citizen. In the said petition, the son
has called in question the legality and validity of the
order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, as affirmed by the Deputy
Commissioner, whereby the Assistant Commissioner
has virtually granted cultivation rights over an extent of
four acres in favour of the mother. The son contends
that the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the
Senior Citizens Act have no competence to adjudicate
inter se civil rights or effect a partition of joint family
properties and, therefore, the impugned order is wholly
without jurisdiction.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/senior citizen in W.P. No.108602 of 2025, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


No.104366 of 2025, who is the son of the senior
citizen, and the learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused
the material placed on record and examined the
impugned orders.
4. This Court, while entertaining the writ
petition filed by the senior citizen and bearing in mind
her advanced age and the need to secure her
sustenance pending adjudication, had directed
₹
respondent No.5–son to pay a sum of 10,000/- per
month towards maintenance. Though learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner/mother disputes the actual
receipt of maintenance, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.5 submits that the mother has been
unwilling to accept maintenance paid in cash and,
therefore, respondent No.5 has been depositing the
amount directly into the bank account of the petitioner.
Be that as it may, the interim arrangement made by

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


this Court has ensured that the senior citizen is not left
without financial support.
5. On a careful examination of the impugned
order produced at Annexure-A in the lead writ petition,
which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.
No.104366 of 2025, this Court is of the considered view
that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is
non-est
a order and one passed wholly without
jurisdiction. Though the Assistant Commissioner has
adverted to the advanced age of the petitioner-mother
and has taken note of her vulnerability as a senior
citizen, the authority has proceeded much beyond the
contours of the jurisdiction vested under the Senior
Citizens Act. By directing allotment of four acres of land
and conferring cultivation rights in respect of an
undivided joint family property, the Assistant
Commissioner has virtually undertaken an exercise akin
to partition and adjudication of proprietary rights,

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


which is clearly impermissible and outside the scope of
powers conferred under the Senior Citizens Act.
6. The scheme of the Senior Citizens Act
contemplates limited and specific remedies. Firstly,
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Senior Citizens Act, a
senior citizen or parent who is neglected and unable to
maintain himself or herself is entitled to claim
maintenance from children or relatives who are legally
obligated to maintain such parent or senior citizen.
Secondly, under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act,
where a senior citizen has transferred his or her
property by way of gift or otherwise in favour of
children or relatives in expectation that the transferee
would provide basic amenities and physical needs, and
where such expectation is defeated on account of
neglect or refusal, the transfer itself can be declared
void and the property restored.

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


7. Save and except these contingencies

contemplated under the Senior Citizens Act, no
adjudicatory power is vested with the Assistant
Commissioner / Tribunal to determine disputed
questions relating to title, partition, separate
possession or conferment of cultivation rights. The
Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act
cannot assume the role of a Civil Court and trench upon
substantive civil rights. In the present case, the
Assistant Commissioner, while ostensibly exercising
powers under the Senior Citizens Act, has virtually
passed a decree for partition by carving out four acres
in favour of the mother, which is an exercise wholly
alien to the statutory scheme and, therefore, cannot be
sustained.
8. Though this Court appreciates the concern
shown by the Assistant Commissioner in taking note of
the advanced age and vulnerability of the petitioner-

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


mother, the authority ought to have confined the
enquiry strictly within the parameters of Sections 3 and
4 of the Senior Citizens Act and, if necessary, secured
maintenance to the senior citizen. Having exceeded the
statutory limits and having ventured into adjudication
of civil rights relating to joint family properties, the
Assistant Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction.
9. Consequently, the impugned order is liable to
be quashed. However, this Court cannot lose sight of
the fact that the petitioner-mother is aged about 83
years and requires financial support and security. This
Court had, during the pendency of the proceedings,
directed respondent No.5–son to pay monthly
₹
maintenance at the rate of 10,000/-. In the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case and having regard
to the filial obligation cast upon respondent No.5, this
Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.5 to
₹
continue to pay a sum of 10,000/- per month to the

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


petitioner-mother without default during her lifetime. It
is also made clear that quashing of the impugned order
shall not preclude the petitioner-mother from instituting
appropriate proceedings before the competent Civil
Court seeking partition and separate possession, if she
is so advised. All contentions in that regard are left
open.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) W.P. No.104366 of 2025 is allowed .
The order dated 14.12.2023 passed by
the Assistant Commissioner and the
consequential order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner are hereby
quashed and set aside as being wholly
without jurisdiction.

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


(ii) The petitioner in W.P. No.104366 of
2025, who is respondent No.5 in W.P.
No.108602 of 2025, shall continue to
pay maintenance to his mother at the
₹
rate of 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) per month, without default, during
her lifetime. The said amount shall be
paid or credited to the bank account of
the petitioner-mother on or before the
5th day of every succeeding month.
(iii) In view of the order passed in W.P.
No.104366 of 2025, the relief sought in
W.P. No.108602 of 2025 for
implementation of the impugned order
does not survive for consideration and
the said writ petition stands disposed
of accordingly.

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8172
WP No. 108602 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104366 of 2025

HC-KAR


(iv) It is made clear that disposal of these
writ petitions shall not come in the way
of the petitioner in W.P. No.108602 of
2025 instituting appropriate proceedings
before the competent Civil Court seeking
partition and separate possession or any
other relief available in law, if she so
chooses, and all rights and contentions
of the parties in that regard are kept
open.
Ordered accordingly.


Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
VNP / CT: BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10