- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.3592 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SUNIL M. PAI S/O LATE MANJUNATH PAI .P AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT #25/106, “SHUBHAM”, 11TH B CROSS, 11TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. 2. SMT. VIDYA S. PAI W/O SUNIL M. PAI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT #25/106, “SHUBHAM”, 11TH B CROSS, 11TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PARINA LALLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.N. NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NIRMALA .M PAI W/O LATE MAJUNATH PAI .P AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT #25/106, “SHUBHAM”, 11TH B CROSS, 11TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 2. SRI SANDEEP .M PAI S/O LATE MANJUNATH PAI .P AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT #25/106, “SHUBHAM”, 11TH B CROSS, 11TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. 3. SMT. SUSHMA RAMESH KAMAT D/O LATE MANJUNATH PAI .P AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT TOP FLOOR, “THE COCOON”, NO.49, 16TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI TRIBHUVAN PRAJWAL K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.B. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 & R-3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R-4 & R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 21.04.2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN MSC/CR.62/2020-21 AND 05.01.2022 IN MAG(4)/MIS/CR- 5/2021/-22 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES-C AND G. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Smt.B.P.Radha, learned AGA, is directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. Petitioner No. 1 being the son and petitioner No. 2 being the daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2021 passed by respondent No. 5 in MSC/CR/62/2020-21 and order dated 05.01.2022 passed by respondent No. 4 in MAG (4)/MIS/CR- 5/2021-22 produced at Annexures- C and G. 3. Facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 herein filed a petition under Section 4 read with Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before respondent No. 5 seeking the following reliefs: “1) A direction to the respondent No.1 and his family to vacate the schedule property and reside separately, in the interest of justice and equity. 2) A direction to the respondent No.1 and his family to not to unlawfully interfere in the schedule property by any means during the lifetime - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 of the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity. 3) A direction to the respondent No.1 to 3 to jointly pay the monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000.00 per month till her last breath, in the interest of justice and equity. 4) Such other orders/directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 4. The said petition came to be allowed on 21.04.2021 by respondent No.5 by the following order : “The Petition of the Petitioner is hereby Allowed. By exercising the powers conferred under Section 4 and 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, this tribunal orders to the Respondent No.1 to hand over vacant possession of entire Petition Schedule Property, which is morefully described in the petition, to the Petitioner within 15 days from the date of this order. Further the concerned Tahasildar directed to take steps to restore the possession of the said property to the Petitioner and if necessary, by taking the help of jurisdictional police. The Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to deliver and hand over all the original title documents pertaining to the schedule property to the Petitioner if Respondent is in possession of the same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 Further directed the Respondent No.1 to restore the vacant possession to the Petitioner. Further Respondent No.1 shall pay Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance and Respondent No.2 and 3 each shall pay Rs.5,000/- as monthly for maintenance from the date of this petition till the death of Petitioner. The concerned Tahasildar is hereby directed to take steps to implement the order in the above application. Notify to the parties.” 5. As against the same, petitioners had preferred an appeal before respondent No.4. By order dated 05.01.2022 the respondent No.4 dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by respondent No. 5. Being aggrieved, the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court through the records more particularly, the averments made in the petition filed before the respondent No. 5, submits that by very statement made by the respondent No. 1, she was financially secured, receiving pension of her late husband and also receiving the rental incomes. As such, a petition under Section 4 of the Act was not maintainable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 6.1. As regards petition under Section 23, he submits that even according to the respondent No.1 herein as averred in para 3.16 of the petition, the schedule property is a family property over which the petitioner No. 1, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are having the right, title and interest as the same originally belonged to the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thus he submits even on that count the petition was not maintainable. 6.2. Further drawing attention to the order sheet maintained by the respondent No. 5 produced at page 29 of the petition, the counsel points out that the matter was listed on 23.12.2020 before respondent No. 5 who adjourned the same to 09.02.2021 and 17.03.2021 on the premise of he being otherwise occupied. However on 17.03.2021, matter was apparently called and posted for passing of the order which resulted in passing the impugned order. He submits that no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the petitioners of being heard. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 6.3. He also draws attention of this Court to the reasoning assigned by respondent No. 5 as found in unnumbered para of page 32 of the writ petition wherein respondent No. 5 has opined that the intention of the petitioner No. 1 herein who is respondent No. 1 there was to snatch the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) depriving the joint right, title and interest of the respondent No. 1 and other respondents. He also points out that the observation made at page 35 of the impugned order wherein the respondent No.5 has opined that respondent No. 1 was unnecessarily enjoying the property. Pointing out on these two, he submits that respondent No. 5 has not only exceeded his jurisdiction but has also allowed the petition for illusory and imaginary reasons. 6.4. He also submits that though the petitioners were not legally justified in filing an appeal under Section 16 of the Act as the said provision do not provide such an appeal to be filed by the petitioner who is not a senior citizen, the said appeal in any event has been dismissed confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore he submits that same may - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 have to be ignored. Thus he submits the petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. 7. In response, the counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, submits that subsequent to the proceedings, respondent No. 1 has obtained a succession certificate in respect of a Will which was not brought to the notice of Assistant Commissioner and if the matter is remanded the additional facts will be placed before the Assistant Commissioner for proper adjudication. Hence, seeks for remand of the matter. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. Sections 4 and 23 of the Act read as under : “4. Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens.–(1) A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 in case of.– (i) parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor; (ii) a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of Section 2. (2) The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 (3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life. (4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen: Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property. x x x 23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.–(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal. 2. 2. Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 transferee for consideration and without notice of right. 3. If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub- section (1) of Section 5.” 10. Clearly, a petition to be maintainable under Section 4, a senior citizen has to make out a case of such senior citizen being in need of financial assistance and is unable to maintain himself as contemplated under Section 4 and for the purpose of Section 23 there should be a conveyance/transfer of the property belonging to the senior citizen or/to transfer estate over which senior citizen has right to receive the maintenance as contemplated thereunder. 11. Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 of the petition filed by respondent No.1 before the Assistant Commissioner read as under : “3.4 The husband of the petitioner passed away on 16.05.2016 the petitioner is receiving the pension of her late husband to the tune of Rs.10,000.00 per month. Also, the petitioner has been residing at the ground floor of House No.25/106, SHUBHAM, 11th B Cross, 11th Main, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560003 (in short referred as 'the Schedule Property' and more fully described - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 in the schedule herein) and given the first floor of the schedule property on rent. The petitioner is maintaining herself out of the pension income and the rental for the first floor of the schedule property. 3.5 The respondent No.2 herein, the eldest son of the petitioner, is a Dentist by profession, remained unmarried as is into spirituality and has been residing with the petitioner at the schedule property, by occupying one room and is personally taking care of the petitioner and also paying the maintenance regularly to the petitioner herein.” 12. As rightly pointed out by the petitioners, the contents of above paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 take away the case of the respondent No.1 from the ambit of Section 4 as even according to respondent No.1 she is financially well secured and receiving pension and rental leading a comfortable life. 13. Para 3.16 of the petition reads as under : “3.16 The petitioner herein having again approached the Elders Helpline in this regard, through their advice has got the Public Notice issued informing the general public through the paper publication that, the petitioner along with all her children are having joint right over the schedule property and that, the respondent No.1 is not an exclusive owner of the schedule property and thereby called upon the general public to not to deal with respondent No.1 in respect of the schedule property on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.2 and 3. After the Public Notice, the degree of threat perception to the petitioner at the hands of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 the respondent No.1, and his family, has increased. The intensity of verbal abuse on the petitioner has reached the maximum extent and the petitioner is under trauma and severe psychological pressure of being physically harmed by the respondent No.1 and his family and being thrown out of the schedule property at any time. The petitioner has no other alternative place of residence except the schedule property and to live in the schedule property along with the respondent No.1 and his family has become impossible and highly impracticable, under the prevailing circumstances going on since more than 4 years. The petitioner has absolutely none to support her and to rescue her in the event the respondent No.1 and his family cause any further mental and physical cruelty on the petitioner.” 14. Clearly, the subject matter of the petition originally belonged to the father of the petitioner No. 1 and upon his demise *petitioner No.1, respondent No. 1 being the mother of petitioner No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have succeeded to their respective share in the subject property. There is no whisper in the petition as to any conveyance or transfer made by her either of the entire schedule property or of her share, in favour of the petitioner No.1. In that view of the matter, the petition under Section 23 of the Act was also not maintainable. 15. Relief sought in the petition as extracted herein above could not have been considered by respondent No.5- *Added vide Court Order dated 25/03/2026 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6517 WP No. 3592 of 2022 Assistant Commissioner as no provision of the Act vests jurisdiction in respondent No. 5 to grant such relief in the absence of requirement of Sections 4 and 23 of the Act being satisfied. Petitioners have made out a case warranting interference. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The orders impugned are set aside. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE CKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6