SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 438243

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S.INDIRESH
SRI R CHANDRA NAIK – Appellant
Versus
SENIOR CITIZEN CARE AND MAINTENANCE – Respondent
WP 29068/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO. 29068 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI R CHANDRA NAIK S/O LATE RAMA NAIK,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

RAMANI NILAYA, VINAYAKA NAGAR,

3RD CROSS, WARD NO. 14,

MANJUNATH NAGAR MAIN ROAD,

BAGALAGUNTE,

BENGALURU 560 070.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRAKASH K N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SENIOR CITIZEN CARE AND MAINTENANCE

MANAGEMENT TRIBUNAL AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201.

Digitally signed

by

PADMASHRE E 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

SHEKHAR DESAI

AND PRESIDENT MAIN TENANCE TRIBUNAL

Location: High

HASSAN SUB DIVISION,

Court Of

Karnatka HASSAN DISTRICT,

HASSAN - 573 201.

3. SMT P M OMKARAMMA

W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,

(WRONGLY CLAIMED AS W/O R CHANDRA NAIK)

AGE NOT KNOWN,

R/AT MADALU VILLAGE,

KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH .K, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. MAG (HI. NARA) 25/2022-23 DATED 01/08/2023 BY THE R1, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for both parties.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order dated 01.08.2023 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) and order dated 22.02.2022 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure –B).

3. Sri.K.N. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is having dispute with the respondent No.3 and further the entire proceedings before the respondent No.2 is made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as the petitioner was placed ex-parte.

The petitioner also has not received notice from the respondent No.2. Accordingly sought for interference of this court.

4. Per contra, Sri.Lakshmikanth K., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that the respondent No.3 is the wife of the petitioner and therefore respondent- authorities have rightly ordered maintenance in favour of respondent No.3 and therefore, sought to justify the impugned orders.

5. Sri. Mahantesh Shetthar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 also sought to justify the impugned orders at Annexure A and B respectively.

6. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is forthcoming from the proceedings that in Hi.Na.Ra.19/19-20 before the respondent No.2, wherein the petitioner herein has not been heard and has been placed ex-parte before the competent authority. It is also to be noted from the observation made by the respondent No.1 at Annexure A, wherein the petitioner is contending that the petitioner has married one G Kanakabai and her name has been mentioned in the service records. That apart, the petitioner is having two children and accordingly disputed the marriage with respondent No.3.

7. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, respondent-authorities ought not to have accepted the petition under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (herein after referred to as ‘Act’).

8. In view of the fact that the petitioner has disputed the relationship with the respondent No.3, it is open for respondent No.3 to establish her relationship with the petitioner in a manner known to law. It is also to be noted that the object of the Act is to provide effective provision for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matters connected therein and incident thereto. As the petitioner herein has disputed the relationship with respondent No.3, I am of the view that, the entire proceedings before respondents No.1 and

2 is non-est and accor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top