Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 76976 (KAR)

SMT JAYAMMA v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

WP/16063/2025 · 2025-08-14

B M Shyam Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31496 WP No. 16063 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16063 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE SRI. KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2265/38 D3 1ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR PADUVARAHALLI, MYSURU 570 012. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB DIVISION ROOM NO. 10, SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MYSURU, KARNATAKA 570005. 2. SRI. K.ARKESH S/O LATE SRI. KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 2265/38/D3 1ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR, PADAVARAHALLI, MYSURU 570012. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31496 WP No. 16063 of 2025 3. SRI.K. RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE SRI. KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2265/38 D3 1ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR PADUVARAHALLI, MYSURU 570 012. 4. SRI. K. SHRIDHAR S/O LATE SRI. KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 2265/38/D3 1ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR, PADAVARAHALLI, MYSURU 570012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A; B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 13.03.2025 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31496 WP No. 16063 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the first respondent's Endorsement dated 21.02.2025 [Annexure-A] informing her that her request for exercise of jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short, 'the Act'] cannot be entertained because her claim is based on a Gift Deed executed by her husband in favour of her son and that her husband has died. 2. Mr. Ajit Kalyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's grievance would be addressed if the petition is disposed of observing that the first respondent must consider the petitioner's application in the light of the following circumstances and the provisions of the Act which are to ensure that a senior citizen is not without maintenance or support. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31496 WP No. 16063 of 2025 3. Mr. Ajit Kalyan canvasses the following as material circumstances. [a] The petitioner’s husband, Sri Kempegowda had invoked the jurisdiction under the Act as a 88-year-old and his application was decided by the first respondent on 23.12.2024 directing the second to fourth respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- each for his maintenance. [b] Sri Kempegowda died just 2 days prior to this order, and the second respondent’s appeal against such order under Section 16 of the Act is disposed of on 04.02.2025. [c] The petitioner is herself aged 79 years and she does not have any source for her maintenance. She is neglected by her sons [the second to fourth respondents]; [d] The provisions of the Act must be invoked to ensure that the petitioner in the late stages of her life is without the assistance of any maintenance. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31496 WP No. 16063 of 2025 4. Ms. Navya Shekhar, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the first respondent, is heard in the light of the afore circumstances and the request for disposal. This Court finds that, notwithstanding the impugned Endorsement dated 21.02.2025, the petitioner must be at liberty to make an application under the Act for protection of her rights and if she makes such an application, the first respondent must consider all the circumstances, including the circumstances as aforesaid, but after extending due opportunity to the second to fourth respondents and take an expeditious decision. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr