- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51231 RP No. 448 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 448 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT RUKMINAMMA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O LATE K T SRINIVASA R/AT NO.OLD NO. 16 3RD FLOOR 1ST STAGE BTM LAYOUT 2ND MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO MARUTHI LAYOUT OLD GURUPPANAPALAY BENGALURU -560076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51231 RP No. 448 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560009. 4. S.BHASKAR. S/O K.T.SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, OLD NO. 16, 1ST STAGE BTM LAY OUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD OPPOSITE TO MARUTHI LAY OUT, OLD GURAPPANAPALYA, BENGALURU -560 076 5. SMT. DAKSHAYINI W/O BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, OLD NO. 16, 1ST STAGE BTM LAY OUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO MARUTHI LAYOUT OLD GURAPPANAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V. SHIVAREDDY., AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED U/S.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW ORDER DATED 1.08.2025 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP NO.5423/2025 AT ANNEXURE - A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51231 RP No. 448 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER This Court has disposed of the writ petition in W.P. No. 5423/2025 by order dated 01.08.2025, which is at the instance of this review petitioner, with the following directions: "[a] The petition stands disposed of directing the fourth and fifth respondents not to create any third- party interest in the subject property during the petitioner's lifetime. [b] The fourth and fifth respondents shall make all efforts to ensure that the loan outstanding as against the subject property does not result in default and that they pay all the property taxes and other charges including the charges for the tenement that is occupied by the petitioner. [c] The fourth and fifth respondents, as and when the petitioner chooses to occupy an alternative tenement in the subject property, shall ensure that suitable arrangements are made therefor without driving the petitioner to another litigation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51231 RP No. 448 of 2025 [d] The petitioner shall, if there is reason for her to make a choice, shall cause communication of such choice to the fourth and fifth respondent in writing. [e] The fourth and fifth respondents shall pay, effective from 01.07.2025 every month before the end of the fifteenth of each month, Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner and for the month of July 2025, this amount shall be paid within a week from today. The amount shall be transferred directly to the petitioner’s account. [f] The petitioner, the fourth and fifth respondents shall, with this order, ensure that they report a settlement in the pending criminal proceedings." This Court's directions are in the light of the reasons as stated in the following paragraphs: "The essential parties to the dispute are a mother, her only son with the daughter-in- law also joining, and the dispute is over a residential property with multiple tenements. The mother asserts that: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51231 RP No. 448 of 2025 [i] the revenue entries to the property–the subject property1 must stand in her name and not in the name of the daughter-in-law but both [the mother and the daughter-in-law] are categorical that no third party interest will be created. [ii] that even if the property is transferred to her name, she will ensure that only her son succeeds to the property. [iii] The son, on his part, has no difficulty in meeting all the expenses of the mother apart from paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for her personal expenses. The question: whether this Court must intervene with the impugned orders is examined in this context and also the mother’s case that the second respondent [the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner] could not have entertained an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short, 'the Act'] on behalf of the son. The petitioner [the mother] has invoked the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 23 of 1 No. 1, Old No. 16, 3rd Floor, 1st Stage BTM Layout, 2nd Main Road, Opposite To Maruthi Layout, Old Gurappanapalya, Bengaluru 560076 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51231 RP No. 448 of 2025 the Act for the cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 31.12.2014 executed by her in favour of the fourth respondent [her son]." Sri S Rajashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that there must be a review of this Court's order because [a] the concerned respondents are in default, [b] the respondents are in arrears of the amount as stipulated by this Court, and [c] this Court has called upon to ensure the parties report a settlement in the pending criminal proceedings. This Court, while hearing these review petitions on the earlier occasions, has categorically opined that there would be no reason for review on the alleged default with the contesting respondents being categorical that all amounts even as of today are paid. This Court must record that if the parties are not willing to report a settlement, there cannot be a direction in a criminal proceedings and to that extent the error is apparent and must be reviewed. As regards the next contention by Sri Rajashekar S that even the intra court appeal is prejudiced if it could be argued by the respondents that this Court's directions are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51231 RP No. 448 of 2025 because of a settlement, it would suffice for this Court to observe that the directions are in exercise of this Court's discretion to serve the overarching purpose of the Act and the procedure that is envisaged. As such, the review petition stands disposed of reviewing this Court's order dated 01.08.2025 in the writ petition in W.P. No. 5423/2025 recalling the stipulation that the parties shall report settlement in the pending criminal proceedings and observing that the outcome in the petition turns on the Court's discretion and not because of any settlement. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-