- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18859 WP No. 3222 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3222 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DAKSHAYANAMMA W/O. LATE PATEL VEERAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT BEERAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT KARNATAKA-577 224. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYARAJ .D.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA - 577 224. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT KARNATAKA-577 224. 4. THE TAHSILDAR HONNALI TALUK Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18859 WP No. 3222 of 2026 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT KARNATAKA-577 224. 5. SRI. J.M. MALLESHAPPA S/O. MALLIKARJUNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT BEERAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT KARNATAKA-577 224. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 R5 - ) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN REJECTING THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. E.N.K.A/CR/13/2024-25 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE - A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed calling in question the legality and correctness of the order passed by the second respondent–Deputy Commissioner, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has concurred with and affirmed the order of the respondent No.2–Assistant Commissioner. By the said order, the Assistant Commissioner has rejected - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18859 WP No. 3222 of 2026 the application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner had invoked the provisions of Section 23 of the Act seeking annulment of a registered adoption deed. Both the authorities, upon due consideration, have declined to entertain the said prayer on the ground that the statutory scheme under the Act does not contemplate adjudication of the validity or annulment of a registered adoption deed, and that such questions fall exclusively within the domain of a competent civil Court. The appellate authority, therefore, declined to interfere, holding that the Assistant Commissioner had rightly refused to assume jurisdiction over a matter beyond the scope of the Act. 2. This Court has carefully examined the orders passed by the authorities below as well as the material placed on record. The Act is a beneficial piece of social welfare legislation enacted with the avowed object of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18859 WP No. 3222 of 2026 ensuring maintenance, welfare, and protection of parents and senior citizens, who are often left destitute or neglected. Section 23 of the Act is a limited provision, enabling the Tribunal to declare certain transfers of property as void, where such transfers are made subject to the condition of providing basic amenities and physical needs to the senior citizen and such condition is breached. The scope of enquiry under Section 23 of the Act is thus circumscribed and confined to examining whether a transfer of property was conditional and whether such condition has been violated, thereby justifying annulment of such transfer. 3. The scheme of the Act does not envisage adjudication of complex civil disputes relating to status, validity of adoption, or cancellation of registered instruments such as adoption deeds. Determination of such issues involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact and law, requiring detailed evidence, which squarely falls within the jurisdiction of civil Courts. The authorities - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18859 WP No. 3222 of 2026 constituted under the Act are not vested with plenary jurisdiction akin to that of civil Courts, but are conferred with summary jurisdiction for the limited purpose of securing maintenance and welfare of senior citizens. 4. In the present case, a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, produced at Annexure-“D”, as well as the preamble of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure- “D2”, unmistakably indicates that the primary relief sought by the petitioner was annulment of a registered adoption deed. Such a relief is clearly beyond the ambit of Section 23 of the Act. The authorities below have, therefore, rightly declined to entertain the said prayer on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 5. It is also relevant to note that, while declining to adjudicate upon the validity of the adoption deed, the competent authority has exercised its limited jurisdiction under the Act and has awarded maintenance in favour of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18859 WP No. 3222 of 2026 the petitioner. The said grant of maintenance is not under challenge by respondent No.5 and has attained finality. This further indicates that the authorities have acted within the permissible contours of the Act and have extended such relief as is statutorily permissible. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality, or infirmity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The findings recorded by the authorities are in consonance with the object, scheme, and scope of the Act, which is intended to provide a speedy and summary remedy for maintenance and welfare, and not to adjudicate intricate civil disputes. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law before a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18859 WP No. 3222 of 2026 competent civil Court for questioning the validity of the registered adoption deed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52