- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52671 RP No. 525 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 525 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MRS. MURIGEMMA W/O DHARMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, C/O NEAR KUNDURU SHANTHAKKA'S HOME, 1ST CROSS, SHIVAJINAGAR, HAVERI, HAVERI-581 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.K.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. SHIVALINGAMMA W/O RAMESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HANAGAWADI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, HANAGAVADI-577243, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER TRIBUNAL OF WELFARE AND MAINTENANCE PARENTS AND Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52671 RP No. 525 of 2024 SENIOR CITIZENS, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577 506. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIBUNAL OF WELFARE AND MAINTENANCE PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.SIDDALINGASWAMY, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE(1)(C) READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION BY REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/09/2024 PASSED IN W.P.NO. 28433/2023 (GM-RES) AND RE-HEAR THE MATTER ON MERITS AND TO PROCEED TO PASS A APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR SETTING-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52671 RP No. 525 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This review petition is filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 26.09.2024 in W.P.No.28433/2023. 2. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court at Paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUDESH CHHIKARA vs. RAMTI DEVI AND ANOTHER reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225 and held that the petition by Senior Citizen is not maintainable if there is no clause in the deed, which provides for providing basic amenities to the third respondent i.e., petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this Review Petition as there is no apparent error on the face of the record. Accordingly, Review Petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13