- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14843 WP No. 26625 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 26625 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: PARAMESWARAN P SON OF RAMACHANDRAN P , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 60 BDA LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK, EWS, JP NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK A.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -1, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, KG ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KG ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 009. 3. P. RAMACHANDRAN, SON OF LATE S. PARAMESWARAN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14843 WP No. 26625 of 2023 NO. 17TH, 9TH STREET, RAJAJI NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 049. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 DATED 6TH SEPTEMBER 2023 BEARING NUMBER MAG(4)/SC/CR/20/2022-23 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which affirms the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.06.2022, directing payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance. The respondent approaches the concerned authority i.e., Assistant Commissioner invoking his jurisdiction seeking maintenance from the hands of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner in terms of his order dated 16.06.2022, allows the petition so filed by respondent No.3 and directs - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14843 WP No. 26625 of 2023 payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, as maintenance. The petitioner files an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which comes to be rejected in terms of the order dated 06.09.2023. It is these orders, that are called in question by the petitioner before this Court in the subject petition. 2. Heard Shri Vivek A.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order granting maintenance is erroneous, as respondent No.3 is residing in Chennai with the daughter. Therefore, he should not be saddled with amount of maintenance at Rs.10,000/-. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that the amount so awarded is in tune with the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('the Act' for short). Therefore, there is no warrant for interference. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14843 WP No. 26625 of 2023 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record. 6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The senior citizen i.e., respondent No.3 alleges harassment and ill- treatment by the son and the daughter-in-law. Several instances of beating, verbal quarrel and non giving of food and medicines is alleged before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allows the petition by the following order: "O R D E R In the result the Petition filed by the petitioner and registered as MSC (SC) CR.63/2020-21, is hereby allowed. 1. The Respondents are directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, so as to enable the petitioner to lead a separate life as prayed by him in the petition. The jurisdictional Tahsildar is directed to take all steps to implement this Order and take the assistance of the jurisdictional Police to provide protection to the life and liberty of the Petitioner." An appeal is preferred by the present petitioner before the Special Deputy Commissioner, only to be rejected, by the following order: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14843 WP No. 26625 of 2023 "O R D E R The impugned Order of the Tribunal dated 16.06.2022 in case No.MSC(SC)CR/63/2020-21 is modified and direct the appellants No.1 and 2 herein to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, in terms of the Order of the Tribunal in favour of the 2nd respondent herein. The appeal in so far as the 3rd appellant herein is allowed. The petition filed by the 2nd respondent against the 3rd appellant herein before the Tribunal is hereby rejected." The issue is now whether the Tribunal could have granted maintenance at Rs.10,000/-, the statute permits it. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows: " 9. Order for maintenance. — (1) If children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of such neglect or refusal, order such children or relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen as the Tribunal may, from time to time, direct. (2) The maximum maintenance allowance which may be ordered by such Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government which shall not exceed ten thousand rupees per month." Section 9 empowers the Assistant Commissioner to grant maintenance to those senior citizens, who are not being taken care of in certain circumstances. The appeal so filed by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14843 WP No. 26625 of 2023 petitioner was not even maintainable before the Deputy Commissioner. 7. In that light, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy commissioner. The petition lacking in merit stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK