- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45832 WP No. 54547 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 54547 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SREENIVAS A. S/O ADINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT B BLOCK 11TH WARD, RAMAPATNA ROAD GUDIBANDE TOWN & TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 101 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PRESIDENT OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS & SENIOR CITIZENS ACT MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 3. SRI ADINARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 4. SMT GANGAMMA W/O ADINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45832 WP No. 54547 of 2018 5. SRI RAJESH N S/O ADINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R3 TO R5 ARE RESIDING AT 10TH WARD B BLOCK, BAPUJINAGAR GUDIBANDE TOWN & TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 6. SRI SURESH N S/O ADINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.41, 3RD CROSS 8TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 043 7. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR G.N. S/O ADINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.61/2, SITE NO.3 NEAR THAMMAREDDYS HOUSE KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 092 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. G.V. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 SMT. SUSHEELA S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SOMANATHA H., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 IN CASE NO.M.S.C/CR:01/2018-19 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45832 WP No. 54547 of 2018 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.2. 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the writ petition are as follows : The petitioner is the eldest son of respondents No.3 and 4. It is stated in the petition that, the petitioner is not educated whereas, his brothers- respondents No.5 to 7, are educated and are in well placed profession and are earning on their own. It is stated in the petition that petitioner was taking care of the needs of his parents-respondents No.3 and 4. It is also stated in the petition that respondent No.3 had executed a Gift Deed dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure-B) in favour of the petitioner and further respondent No.3 had executed a Registered Gift Deed dated 15.04.2016 (Annexure-E) in favour of respondent No.4. It is further stated in the petition that respondent No.4 had executed a Gift Deed dated 21.10.2017 (Annexure-E1) in favour of the petitioner herein. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45832 WP No. 54547 of 2018 2.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, respondents No.3 and 4 have approached Respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Competent Authority by the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure-A) set aside the Gift Deed dated 06.05.2015 and 21.10.2017 and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Heard Sri.Bhadrinath R, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri.V.Vishwanatha, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 and Smt.Susheela.S, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.Somanatha.H for respondents No.5 to 7. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the various gift deeds produced at Annexures B, E and E1, submitted that respondent No.4 had executed a Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is taking care of his father-respondent No.3 and therefore, the finding recorded by respondent No.2 in the impugned order at Annexure-A requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45832 WP No. 54547 of 2018 It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petition filed by respondent No.4 before respondent no.2 is not maintainable as she was aged about 58 years and not a senior citizen and therefore, respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction under the Act to pass the impugned order at Annexure-A and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, Smt. Susheela.S, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.5 to 7 sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-A, by referring to Section 2(d) of the Act and argued that even if the applicant under the Act is not a senior citizen, however, even a parent of the child is entitled to file an application seeking appropriate relief, taking into consideration that maintenance is required to be made by the children and therefore, contended that respondent No.2 is having jurisdiction to pass appropriate order. Insofar as respondent No.2 is concerned, quashing the Gift Deeds (Annexures B and E1), learned Senior Counsel by referring to the averments made in the Gift Deed at Annexure-E1 and also referring to the statement of objection filed by the petitioner herein before respondent No.2 argued that, as the petitioner himself has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45832 WP No. 54547 of 2018 admitted in the statement of objection with regard to the maintenance of respondent No.3 by the petitioner is concerned, no interference is called for in this writ petition and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned AGA argued with reference to the scope and object of the Act is concerned and submitted that, respondent No.2 is having jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by respondents No.3 and 4 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties in respect of the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 is concerned, I have carefully examined the Aims and Objectives of the Act which reads as under : "Act to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matters connected therein that are incidental thereto". (Emphasis supplied) Section 2(d) of the Act provides for definition to the word "parent" which reads as under : - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45832 WP No. 54547 of 2018 "parent" means father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step father or step mother, as the case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is a senior citizen". 7. Taking into consideration the object of the Act as well as the definition to the word 'parent' is concerned, I am of the view that, the application filed by respondent No.4, though not a Senior Citizen attained the age of 60 years, is maintainable as the Act itself provides for maintenance and welfare of the 'parents' irrespective of their age and therefore, respondent No.2 is having a jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by respondents No.3 and 4 is concerned. 8. 8. Insofar as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the veracity of the impugned order is concerned, I have carefully examined the statement of objections filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner himself has stated that, for the financial security of the applicants therein, the said application is filed before respondent no.2, which makes it clear that the said application has been made by respondents no.3 and 4 before respondent No.2 for security of their life and for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45832 WP No. 54547 of 2018 their maintenance as the Registered Gift Deeds have been executed by both respondents No.3 and 4 in favour of the petitioner as per Annexures B and E1 are concerned and therefore, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition. That apart, as respondent No.4 died on 07.10.2020, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition as the finding recorded by respondent No.2 is justified. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28