Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Sunil H. Bohra and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Assistant Commissioner North Sub-Division Kandaya Bhavan and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.13448 of 2021 (Gm – Res)
Decided on 9.9.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Sri K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., Hcgp for R1, Sri M. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For R2 and R3
IMPORTANT POINT
Protection of senior citizens – Ageing has become a major social challenge and there is need to give more attention to care and protection for older persons.
Headnote:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Sections 4, 9, 22 and 23 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Grant of token compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- by Assistant Commissioner – Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of challenges faced by them – Ageing has become a major social challenge and there is need to give more attention to care and protection for older persons – In light of spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index today, to do complete justice between parties, maintenance at Rs.30,000/- to each senior citizen, should be appropriate to be granted by Tribunal, during subsistence of proceedings before Assistant Commissioner now remitted – While granting such maintenance, Assistant Commissioner should look into income of senior citizen in case at hand and direct senior citizen to file affidavit of property standing in their name and income derived from said property and then, assess continuance of maintenance, as is granted in subject petition – In the event amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is already paid by petitioners to respondents as ordered by respondent, same shall be given set off towards arrears. (Paras 14, 19 and 21)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER (CAV)
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 16-04-2021 passed by the 1st respondent/Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) by which the 1st respondent has granted a token compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the petitioners to respondents 1 to 5.
2. Heard Sri K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. Petitioners 1 to 4 are the children of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent is said to be the step mother of petitioners 1 to 4. 5th petitioner is the daughter-in-law of respondents 2 and 3 and wife of 4th petitioner. The mother of petitioners 1 to 4 dies on 30-08-1996. During the lifetime of the mother, it is the averment in the petition, that father of petitioners 1 to 4 had married the 3rd respondent/Smt. Nirmala H. Bohra. The father owned schedule properties. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent are said to have inherited certain immovable properties as described in the schedule. The petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties claiming legitimate share thereon. When things stood thus, the 1st petitioner caused a legal notice upon the 2nd respondent seeking allotment of his share in the properties. It was also contended that on the death of the mother of petitioners 1 to 4, the 2nd respondent got the katha of item No.1 of the schedule properties to his name. It is averred in the petition as to how the properties came to the hands of the 2nd respondent or the entitlement of the petitioners.
3.2. When things stood thus, respondents 2 and 3 alleging that they have been continuously harassed by the petitioners, register a complaint against the petitioners before the elders’ helpline. The allegation was that they have been abused by the petitioners and had unauthorizedly occupied the premises belonging to respondents 2 and 3. After registration of the complaint to the helpline, respondents 2 and 3 are said to have been forcibly dispossessed, due to which they are staying in a rented premise. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent registers a complaint before the Sampangiramanagara Police Station alleging harassment by the petitioners. This was closed after summoning the petitioners and recording a non-cognizable report. The petitioners also instituted a suit in O.S.No.4336 of 2021 seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. The trial Court, in the said suit, passes an order directing the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 to maintain status quo in respect of item No.1 in the schedule properties and the same is subsisting even today.
3.3. On the allegation that the respondents are now being interfered with or harassed, they approached the Assistant Commissioner under the Act by filing a petition. The Assistant Commissioner, on hearing the parties, holds that the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for a token compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly directs payment of Rs.5,00,000/- to respondents 2 and 3 from out of the rents collected by the petitioners within 15 days failing which, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It is then, the petitioners have approached this Court in the subject petition. When the matter appeared before this Court on 27-07-2021, the respondents have undertaken not to precipitate the matter and the said undertaking is subsisting even today.
4. The learned counsel Sri K.S. Mallikarjunaiah appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Tribunal headed by the Assistant Commissioner has grossly erred in granting an order, which the law does not permit. According to the learned counsel under
