Partly allowed

Sri Yogesh v. R v the Tribunal of Maintenance and

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2022WP/731/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing an order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that the Tribunal violated principles of natural justice by failing to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing and erred in not apportioning liability among all sons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.8.2020 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Petitioner undertook to pay Rs. 10,000 monthly.

Sri Yogesh v R Vs the Tribunal of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.731 OF 2021(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. YOGESH V R, S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.C2, 3^RD FLOOR, M G LAYOUT, SARAJAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 562 125.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESH A, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE TRIBUNAL OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶13

SRI. RAMEGOWDA, S/O SHETTIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. BORAMMA, W/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO.90, “YOGA NILAYA”, VISHWESHWARIAH NAGAR, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK – 573 202.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;

¶17

R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.8.2020 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE AN WELFARE OF PARENTS

¶19

¶20

AND SENIOR CITIZENS AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN AS PER ANNEXURE-F.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition by the son lays a challenge to the order dated 29.08.2020 made by the first respondent. The test of the operative portion of the order a copy whereof is at Annexure-F reads as under:

¶24

“DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå.».£Á.gÀ.17/19-20 ¢£ÁAPÀ:29-8-2020

¶25

»jAiÀÄ £ÁUÀjÃPÀgÀ ¥Á®£É ¥ÉÆÃµÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ¯Áåt C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 2007 ¹PÀë£ï 23(1) gÀ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁVgÀÄªÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ºÁ¸À£À vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½ vÉÃdÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÖ aPÀÌUÉÆAqÀUÀÄ¼À UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ/£ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢vÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀA.151600601901120500 ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀASÉå (UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÀgÀ) SÁvÁ £ÀA§gï 814/2 gÀ°è EgÀÄªÀ GvÀÛgÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ «¹ÛÃtð ¥ÀÆªÀð-¥À²ÑªÀÄ ºÀ£ÉßgÀqÀÄ ¥Á¬ÄAmï MAzÀÄ MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀÄ «ÄÃlgï (12.192 4.572) MlÄÖ 55.74 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgï ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ°è EgÀÄªÀ Dgï.¹.¹.PÀlÖqÀzÀ «¹ÛÃtð MlÄÖ 111.48 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgïªÀÅ¼Àî Dgï.¹.¹.ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:23-122014 gÀAzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹zÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ dAn SÁvÉ zÁR°¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj, UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, vÉÃdÆgÀÄ, EªÀjUÉ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.”

¶26

The second respondent – Sri Ramegowda who is

¶27

petitioner’s father has remained absent despite service of

¶28

¶29

notice from this court. The third respondent Smr. Boramma is stated to have passed away and to that effect the Death Extract has also been produced. Learned HCGP appearing for the first respondent opposes the writ petition contending that the impugned order is perfectly in regard with the intent & policy content of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and therefore, the Writ Court should be slow to grant indulgence in the matter; so contending, she seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶31

a) the order affects the rights of petitioner in respect of immovable property of a considerable value; petitioner’s contention that he was not given an adequate opportunity to meet the petition before the Tribunal below is established by the perusal of case papers; opportunity of hearing being an essential element of due adjudication cannot be denied to the litigants; thus, there is violation of

¶32

¶33

principles of natural justice; therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order.

¶34

b) Petitioner – son fairly submits that the impugned

¶35

order be set at naught and matter be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh and that he would pay to the second respondent-father a sum of Rs.10,000/- every month and that he would meet all his medical expenses too till the remand is decided; that being the position, an eminent case for remand is made out that would not cause injustice to any of the parties.

¶36

c) There is some force in the submission of learned

¶37

counsel for petitioner that the duty to look after the parents lies on the shoulders of all the earning children and therefore, the liability ought to have been apportioned between both the sons; however this aspect the Tribunal ought to have addressed and this having not been done, there is another error apparent on the face of the impugned order.

¶38

In the above circumstances, this writ petitions succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order and the matter is remitted to the first respondent-Tribunal for consideration afresh, in

¶39

¶40

accordance with law and after giving full opportunity of participation to the petitioner.

¶41

The petitioner as undertaken, shall pay to the second respondent-father Sri Ramegowda a sum of Rs.10,000/on or before 5^th of every Calendar month, failing which, the impugned order now set at naught shall revive on its own

¶42

and petition stands rejected.

¶43

All contentions are kept open.

¶44

No costs.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Bsv

Sri Yogesh v. R v the Tribunal of Maintenance and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Yogesh v. R v the Tribunal of Maintenance and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. M D Tilakavathy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anthony Raj a Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank

Sri M C Hombalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Doddahobalaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Narasimhamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S Vs the State of Karnataka