SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 49361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DR. M.S. MAHESH – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 5248 OF 2025 (GM-RES)



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5248 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN DR. M.S. MAHESH.

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE M. SHIVANNA RESIDING AT NO. 19, KALIDASA MAIN ROAD, SUBHADRA COMPLEX, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, VANI VILAS MOHALLA, MYSURU-570002. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Digitally signed MYSURU DISTRICT, by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA M YSURU-570012.

Location: HIGH 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COURT OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA WELFARE OF SENIOR CITIZENS COMMITTEE, MYSURU-570012.

3. SMT. SUBHADRAMMMA W/O LATE M. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 19, KALIDASA MAIN ROAD, SUBHADRA COMPLEX, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, VANI VILAS MOHALLA, MYSURU-570002.

##PAGE2##

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WITH HER ELDER DAUGHTER S MT. HARI VATHSALA AHLUWALIA, …. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1 & R2;

SRI. K. MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2025, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN IN DISPUTE NO.

SCA/261/2024/(RD0050000646489) WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.07.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CAV ORDER

1. The Petitioner, son of respondent No. 3 is before this court seeking for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the Order dated 04.02.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Mysuru District, Mysuru-the Respondent No.1 herein in Dispute No SCA/261/2024(RD0050000646489), which is at Annexure-M.

b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the Order dated 12.08.2024, passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Mysuru District, Mysuru-the Respondent No.2 herein in Disputes No: MYSAC-

MAG/SRCZ/76/2023, which is at Annexures-J.

##PAGE3##

c) Issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 not to give effect to their orders dated 04.02.2025, passed by the Respondent No.1, in Dispute No: SCA/261/2024(RD0050000646489), which is at Annexure- M, and order dated 12.08.2024, passed by the Respondent No.2 in Dispute No: MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/76/2023, which is at Annexure-J.

d) Issue such other Writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to cost in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Respondent No. 3, who is the mother of the petitioner, instituted proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru, functioning as the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Senior Citizens Act"), by filing an application dated 13.04.2023. In the said application, she alleged that the petitioner was subjecting her to harassment in the house in which she was residing. It was specifically contended that the petitioner had wrongfully confined her and her sister by locking them in a dark room and that the petitioner's wife was constantly picking quarrels with her, thereby depriving her of a peaceful life. On these allegations, she sought an order directing the eviction of the petitioner from the said residential premises.

##PAGE4##

3. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 12.08.2024, allowed the application and directed the eviction of the petitioner and his family from the subject premises. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 04.02.2025, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Assistant Commiss

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top